Rename various "concrete opaque type" things to say "hidden type" #147109
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Some changes occurred in exhaustiveness checking cc @Nadrieril |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
lcnr
reviewed
Sep 28, 2025
lcnr
reviewed
Sep 28, 2025
lcnr
reviewed
Sep 29, 2025
BoxyUwU
force-pushed
the
rename_concrete_opaques
branch
from
292a521 to
66b664c
Compare
|
do u think |
|
I think it's fine 🤷 no strong preference here @bors r+ rollup=iffy |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Zalathar
added a commit
to Zalathar/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2025
…=lcnr Rename various "concrete opaque type" things to say "hidden type" r? lcnr I've found "concrete opaque type" terminology to be somewhat confusing as in conversation and when explaining opaque type stuff to people I always just talk about things in terms of hidden types. Also the hidden types of opaques are very much not *concrete* in the same sense that a type without any generic parameters is concrete which is an unfortunate overlap in terminology. I've tried to update comments to also stop referring to things as concrete opaque types but this is mostly best effort as it difficult to find all such cases amongst the massive amounts of uses of "concrete" or "hidden" across the whole compiler.
This was referenced Sep 30, 2025
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2025
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - #140916 (Fix unuseful span in type error in some format_args!() invocations) - #146011 (Point at fn bound that introduced lifetime obligation) - #146649 (cmse: fix 'region variables should not be hashed') - #147109 (Rename various "concrete opaque type" things to say "hidden type") - #147167 (Don't condition RUSTDOC_LIBDIR on `--no-doc`) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 30, 2025
Rollup merge of #147109 - BoxyUwU:rename_concrete_opaques, r=lcnr Rename various "concrete opaque type" things to say "hidden type" r? lcnr I've found "concrete opaque type" terminology to be somewhat confusing as in conversation and when explaining opaque type stuff to people I always just talk about things in terms of hidden types. Also the hidden types of opaques are very much not *concrete* in the same sense that a type without any generic parameters is concrete which is an unfortunate overlap in terminology. I've tried to update comments to also stop referring to things as concrete opaque types but this is mostly best effort as it difficult to find all such cases amongst the massive amounts of uses of "concrete" or "hidden" across the whole compiler.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
r? lcnr
I've found "concrete opaque type" terminology to be somewhat confusing as in conversation and when explaining opaque type stuff to people I always just talk about things in terms of hidden types. Also the hidden types of opaques are very much not concrete in the same sense that a type without any generic parameters is concrete which is an unfortunate overlap in terminology.
I've tried to update comments to also stop referring to things as concrete opaque types but this is mostly best effort as it difficult to find all such cases amongst the massive amounts of uses of "concrete" or "hidden" across the whole compiler.