In particular, I found that the disclaimer (promised in the second paragraph) doesn't stand out right now. I think the extra headers help with scanning this document, and making it easier to discern which steps are relevant to my particular flow through the options.
In particular, I found that the disclaimer (promised in the second paragraph) doesn't stand out right now. I think the extra headers help with scanning this document, and making it easier to discern which steps are relevant to my particular flow through the options.
This pull request removes `ParamBounds` a old holdover in the type checker that we (@nikomatsakis and I) had wanted to remove. I'm not sure if the current form is the best possible refactor but I figured we can use this as a place to discuss it.
r? @nikomatsakis
I'm currently reading the rust book and this variable name tripped me up.
Because it was called "input", I thought at first it might contain the line
read by read_line(). This new variable name will be more instructive to rust
beginners.
When a method exists in an impl but can not be used due to missing trait bounds for the type parameters, we should inform the user which trait bounds are missing.
For example, this code
```
// Note this is missing a Debug impl
struct Foo;
fn main() {
let a: Result<(), Foo> = Ok(());
a.unwrap()
}
```
Now gives the following error:
```
/home/gulshan/tmp/tmp.rs:6:7: 6:15 error: no method named `unwrap` found for type `core::result::Result<(), Foo>` in the current scope
/home/gulshan/tmp/tmp.rs:6 a.unwrap()
^~~~~~~~
/home/gulshan/tmp/tmp.rs:6:7: 6:15 note: The method `unwrap` exists but the following trait bounds were not satisfied: `Foo : core::fmt::Debug`
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/20941.
I'm currently reading the rust book and this variable name tripped me up.
Because it was called "input", I thought at first it might contain the line
read by read_line(). This new variable name will be more instructive to rust
beginners.
