This is a [breaking-change]. The new rules require that, for an impl of a trait defined
in some other crate, two conditions must hold:
1. Some type must be local.
2. Every type parameter must appear "under" some local type.
Here are some examples that are legal:
```rust
struct MyStruct<T> { ... }
// Here `T` appears "under' `MyStruct`.
impl<T> Clone for MyStruct<T> { }
// Here `T` appears "under' `MyStruct` as well. Note that it also appears
// elsewhere.
impl<T> Iterator<T> for MyStruct<T> { }
```
Here is an illegal example:
```rust
// Here `U` does not appear "under" `MyStruct` or any other local type.
// We call `U` "uncovered".
impl<T,U> Iterator<U> for MyStruct<T> { }
```
There are a couple of ways to rewrite this last example so that it is
legal:
1. In some cases, the uncovered type parameter (here, `U`) should be converted
into an associated type. This is however a non-local change that requires access
to the original trait. Also, associated types are not fully baked.
2. Add `U` as a type parameter of `MyStruct`:
```rust
struct MyStruct<T,U> { ... }
impl<T,U> Iterator<U> for MyStruct<T,U> { }
```
3. Create a newtype wrapper for `U`
```rust
impl<T,U> Iterator<Wrapper<U>> for MyStruct<T,U> { }
```
Because associated types are not fully baked, which in the case of the
`Hash` trait makes adhering to this rule impossible, you can
temporarily disable this rule in your crate by using
`#![feature(old_orphan_check)]`. Note that the `old_orphan_check`
feature will be removed before 1.0 is released.
region binding at the impl site, so for method types that come from impls,
it is necessary to liberate/instantiate late-bound regions at multiple
depths.
I wanted to embed an `Rc<TraitRef>`, but I was foiled by the current
static rules, which prohibit non-Sync values from being stored in
static locations. This means that the constants for `ty_int` and so
forth cannot be initialized.
variables in the intracrate case. This requires a deeper distinction
between inter- and intra-crate so as to keep coherence working.
I suspect the best fix is to generalize the recursion check that
exists today, but this requires a bit more refactoring to achieve.
(In other words, where today it says OK for an exact match, we'd want
to not detect exact matches but rather skolemize each trait-reference
fresh and return AMBIG -- but that requires us to make builtin bounds
work shallowly like everything else and move the cycle detection into
the fulfillment context.)
