remove associated_consts feature gate #42809
Conversation
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
seanmonstar
force-pushed
the
stable-associated-consts
branch
3 times, most recently
from
0d9a786 to
4f9a4c0
Compare
alexcrichton
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
Deleting the associated_consts page of the unstable book altogther? Shouldn't the stable book be updated somehow to account for them? |
|
Sure, though as to where and how, I have no idea. And it seems all the possible places to move that file are actually submodules... |
|
I'd suggest perhaps just leaving the page in the unstable book for now so that we don't forget that documentation exists for it, after all, it is still unstable until the 1.20 release. Docs are low-risk to backport to beta, if it comes to that. |
|
I don't think it's worth holding up this PR for this next comment, but there's a postponed RFC from 2015 that was gated on associated consts that could be worth discussing now ( rust-lang/rfcs#1168 ), but for the sake of backcompat it wants to reserve two legal identifiers for associated consts for future use. Again, not worth holding up this PR for, but something that ought to be considered before this makes it into beta. |
|
|
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #42856) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
seanmonstar
force-pushed
the
stable-associated-consts
branch
from
4f9a4c0 to
79cab7a
Compare
|
Travis failure is spurious. r? @nikomatsakis |
|
@seanmonstar sorry for the delay! Before stabilizing, we are supposed to have doc PRs pending, at least. There are some details about how to do it in the forge docs on stabilization. I think the basic idea would be to move the existing material from the "unstable book" into the reference -- sparse as it is, it's better than nothing. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #42924) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
seanmonstar
force-pushed
the
stable-associated-consts
branch
from
79cab7a to
c23810d
Compare
|
Rebased again, and opened a PR against the reference to pull in the docs from the unstable book: rust-lang/reference#75 |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #42727) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
@seanmonstar just that you are aware for the case you want this to get into 1.20 : the beta branches in a week. |
seanmonstar
force-pushed
the
stable-associated-consts
branch
from
c23810d to
9386be0
Compare
|
@est31 oh, I know! After yet another rebase, I'll ping someone with merge permissions when travis is green. |
seanmonstar
force-pushed
the
stable-associated-consts
branch
from
9386be0 to
42eccb5
Compare
seanmonstar
force-pushed
the
stable-associated-consts
branch
from
42eccb5 to
74b2d69
Compare
|
@nikomatsakis ok, so it's green, and the PR to the reference is approved waiting on this merge. We good to go? |
frewsxcv
added
the
T-lang
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 74b2d69 has been approved by |
…tsakis remove associated_consts feature gate Currently struggling to run tests locally (something about jemalloc target missing). cc #29646
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Currently struggling to run tests locally (something about jemalloc target missing).
cc #29646