-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.5k
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
Tracking Issue for the Freeze
trait
#121675
Labels
B-experimental
Blocker: In-tree experiment; RFC pending or unneeded.
C-tracking-issue
Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature.
T-lang
Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
T-libs-api
Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
oli-obk
added
T-libs-api
Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
C-tracking-issue
Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature.
labels
Feb 27, 2024
fmease
added
T-lang
Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
B-experimental
Blocker: In-tree experiment; RFC pending or unneeded.
labels
Mar 1, 2024
@rust-lang/lang -- quick vibe check, do you think this needs an RFC or can it be done with a writeup and FCP in this issue? |
Clarification Ralf: what is "this"? Stabilizing Freeze? I'm inclined to say RFC. Adding a new auto trait feels like a Big Deal and I'd like a strong write up on the justification and expected usage (that said, I believe this is a good move and there are legit reasons for this)
…On Thu, May 2, 2024, at 7:40 PM, Ralf Jung wrote:
@rust-lang/lang <https://github.com/orgs/rust-lang/teams/lang> -- quick vibe check, do you think this needs an RFC or can it be done with a writeup and FCP in this issue?
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub <#121675 (comment)>, or unsubscribe <https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AABF4ZUTIXQGZWXW6K3WMFDZAJ3AHAVCNFSM6AAAAABD4CORHCVHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDAOJRGE2DMNZVG4>.
You are receiving this because you are on a team that was mentioned.Message ID: ***@***.***>
|
"This" = stabilizing "Freeze" bounds (but not impls)
|
OK. Then yes, I think it requires an RFC.
|
Okay, thanks. So -- if someone wants to help push this towards stabilization, drafting an RFC would be a good next step. :) |
Here is a stabilization RFC for this feature: rust-lang/rfcs#3633 :) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
B-experimental
Blocker: In-tree experiment; RFC pending or unneeded.
C-tracking-issue
Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature.
T-lang
Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
T-libs-api
Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Feature gate:
#![feature(freeze)]
This is a tracking issue for the
core::marker::Freeze
traitThis trait allows generic code to restrict generic parameters to types without interior mutability.
Public API
Steps / History
Unresolved Questions
Footnotes
https://std-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/feature-lifecycle/stabilization.html ↩
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: