From 996891437567f3b90867cdd03d2ea7e53f8d31f6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Sean Griffin Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2016 14:04:12 -0600 Subject: [PATCH] Update the alternative section for #1268 This RFC was written at a time where the specialization RFC appeared to include the lattice rule. Since the RFC was accepted without it, this RFC implies that it is superseded by specialization, but it is not. --- text/1268-allow-overlapping-impls-on-marker-traits.md | 7 ++++--- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) diff --git a/text/1268-allow-overlapping-impls-on-marker-traits.md b/text/1268-allow-overlapping-impls-on-marker-traits.md index 0df66d3faa7..9ae0b4cb450 100644 --- a/text/1268-allow-overlapping-impls-on-marker-traits.md +++ b/text/1268-allow-overlapping-impls-on-marker-traits.md @@ -112,9 +112,10 @@ probably be considered an acceptable breakage. # Alternatives -Once specialization lands, there does not appear to be a case that is impossible -to write, albeit with some additional boilerplate, as you'll have to manually -specify the empty impl for any overlap that might occur. +If the lattice rule for specialization is eventually accepted, there does not +appear to be a case that is impossible to write, albeit with some additional +boilerplate, as you'll have to manually specify the empty impl for any overlap +that might occur. # Unresolved questions