-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Inline function to avoid naming confusion. #40266
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.
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
Conversation
r? @nrc (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
@bors r+ rollup |
📌 Commit f51d211 has been approved by |
🔒 Merge conflict |
f51d211
to
019f58b
Compare
Rebased, though I didn't notice a merge conflict when doing so. Did I misunderstand the message from bors? It looks different from the normal message... |
Oddly, I'm seeing errors in UI tests, but I can't figure out what could cause them. The code appears to be identical.
|
Ha. |
019f58b
to
69899b7
Compare
Fixed. |
@bors r+ rollup |
📌 Commit 69899b7 has been approved by |
Inline function to avoid naming confusion. Fixes the non-RFC requiring portion of #18394. The suggestion for a new token there probably needs to either be refiled onto rust-lang/rfcs if it's still relevant (may not be given Macros 2.0 work, not sure).
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Fixes the non-RFC requiring portion of #18394. The suggestion for a new token there probably needs to either be refiled onto rust-lang/rfcs if it's still relevant (may not be given Macros 2.0 work, not sure).