Skip to content

Edit #911 - The order const unsafe fn was chosen (rust-lang/rust#29107) #1335

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 26, 2015
Merged

Edit #911 - The order const unsafe fn was chosen (rust-lang/rust#29107) #1335

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
4 changes: 2 additions & 2 deletions text/0911-const-fn.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -178,7 +178,7 @@ invariants to be maintained (e.g. `std::ptr::Unique` requires a non-null pointer
struct OptionalInt(u32);
impl OptionalInt {
/// Value must be non-zero
unsafe const fn new(val: u32) -> OptionalInt {
const unsafe fn new(val: u32) -> OptionalInt {
OptionalInt(val)
}
}
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -241,4 +241,4 @@ cannot be taken for granted, at least `if`/`else` should eventually work.

Since it was accepted, the RFC has been updated as follows:

1. Allowed `unsafe const fn`
1. Allowed `const unsafe fn`