Skip to content
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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

unsafe const fn declaration order #29107

Closed
brson opened this issue Oct 16, 2015 · 5 comments
Closed

unsafe const fn declaration order #29107

brson opened this issue Oct 16, 2015 · 5 comments
Labels
A-parser Area: The parsing of Rust source code to an AST. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Oct 16, 2015

The recent implementation uses the syntax unsafe const fn, but the RFC says const unsafe fn.
@brson brson added A-parser Area: The parsing of Rust source code to an AST. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. I-needs-decision Issue: In need of a decision. I-nominated labels Oct 16, 2015
@brson brson mentioned this issue Oct 16, 2015
Merged
@nikomatsakis nikomatsakis mentioned this issue Oct 16, 2015
Closed
3 tasks
@thepowersgang
Copy link
Contributor

Actually, the RFC text says unsafe const fn, but a comment on the PR says const unsafe fn

thepowersgang added a commit to thepowersgang/rust that referenced this issue Oct 18, 2015
@thepowersgang
Support const unsafe fn ordering as well as unsafe const fn (rust…
f1b8296 
…-lang#29107)
@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

Discussed in the lang meeting today and decided we might as well stick to our decision, arbitrary though it may have been, and thus we should accept only const unsafe fn. I think that most of us would prefer to actually accept modifiers in any order, but it seems weird to accept just these two particular modifiers in any order, and thus we should just open a more general RFC about allowing arbitrary modifiers to appear in any order.

@thepowersgang
Copy link
Contributor

I'm doing a final compilation check on the commit above, once it's done I'll file a PR reversing the order.

thepowersgang added a commit to thepowersgang/rust-lang_rfcs that referenced this issue Oct 24, 2015
@thepowersgang
The order const unsafe fn was chosen (rust-lang/rust#29107)
5f69ff5
thepowersgang added a commit to thepowersgang/rust that referenced this issue Oct 25, 2015
@thepowersgang
Switch to 'const unsafe fn' ordering (rust-lang#29107)
f9b8c49
@thepowersgang
Copy link
Contributor

RFC update PR rust-lang/rfcs#1335 and implementation update #29274

nikomatsakis added a commit to rust-lang/rfcs that referenced this issue Oct 26, 2015
@nikomatsakis
Merge pull request #1335 from thepowersgang/fix-const-unsafe-fn-order
7108a93 
Edit #911 - The order `const unsafe fn` was chosen (rust-lang/rust#29107)
@nikomatsakis nikomatsakis removed I-needs-decision Issue: In need of a decision. I-nominated labels Oct 29, 2015
@nikomatsakis
Copy link
Contributor

Done in #29274

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-parser Area: The parsing of Rust source code to an AST. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@brson @nikomatsakis @thepowersgang