Change:
<ins> error[E0658]: generic associated types are unstable --> $DIR/issue-67424.rs:8:5 | LL |     type Type1<B>: Trait1<A=B>; |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | = note: for more information, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44265 = help: add `#![feature(generic_associated_types)]` to the crate attributes to enable error: type-generic associated types are not yet implemented --> $DIR/issue-67424.rs:8:5 | LL |     type Type1<B>: Trait1<A=B>; |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ | = note: for more information, see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/44265 error: aborting due to 2 previous errors For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0658`. </ins>

Discussion:
paniked when I tried to use GAT, I didn't know does not support it then. Anyway I think it is not supposed to panic. I have confirmed with version 1.39 on Windows, my PC version 1.36 on Linux. It said,
Seems a duplicate of , I did not noticed it when I was opening this issue, sorry. There is also a small difference that I did not turn on
cc &
This should be fixed in the next nightly

This is a toy example I made in order to later make tests which run for with . This is the error I get: Error notes: - compiler flags: I don't know if this kind of pattern is intended as part of the feature or in its future, but if not, I think it can be satisfied by using a procedural macro so that's probably alright. The point of the pattern, as I mentioned at the beginning of the post, is to be able to test a particular generic type's implementation up to an arbitrary range of numeric constants. While implementing another project to help test the feature, I stumbled upon the problem of wanting to test hundreds of different constants, but having no way of doing so with say, a loop over a range of constants. This is one way I thought of making it work. Am I making the right decisions here? How should I go about testing hundreds of constants? Thanks :)
Note: another example that also panics. I know, yes, expressions aren't yet supported as const parameters. But it has the same panic, which is WEIRD! When I wrote this one, I thought "okay maybe inside a statement, the compiler won't try things like because the case when is is already covered... and with exhaustiveness check it should know that N = 0 won't enter the second branch". But I must be wrong there, or otherwise how did it panic? Error:
Minified: I'm pretty sure that I saw this ICE before, but I can't find it ;/
This is just a result of having an expression () as a const generic argument. I don't actually think there's a canonical issue, though many of the issues are essentially the same. is the best tracking issue.
No longer ICEs on the latest nightly
Oh, the new output is interesting. It probably needs to be monomorphized so that the compiler detects the infinite recursion. And then we could also write one that doesn't have infinite recursion :3 In order to force an error, a test function should suffice right?
What do you mean?
I mean that I imagined it might detect that the function recurses infinitely onto itself. But I guess it reads it lazily, and lets monomorphization do the job of recursing the function? which would make a lot of sense to me.