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.

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

Ensure accepted RFCs are all in the manual and elsewhere #20137

Closed
steveklabnik opened this issue Dec 22, 2014 · 4 comments
Closed

Ensure accepted RFCs are all in the manual and elsewhere #20137

steveklabnik opened this issue Dec 22, 2014 · 4 comments
Assignees
Labels
P-low Low priority
Milestone

Comments

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

Ideally, the Reference would contain all of the semantics of the language. A big source of those semantics are RFCs, which have modified Rust over time. We need to go over every accepted RFC and ensure that it's actually documented in the language documentation proper.

Here is a check-off-able list of all of them. A bunch of them will be able to be checked off without pull request, but I want to make sure that we double check every one.

  • 0001-private-fields
  • 0002-rfc-process
  • 0003-attribute-usage
  • 0008-new-intrinsics
  • 0016-more-attributes
  • 0019-opt-in-builtin-traits
  • 0026-remove-priv
  • 0034-bounded-type-parameters
  • 0040-libstd-facade
  • 0042-regexps
  • 0048-traits
  • 0049-match-arm-attributes
  • 0050-assert
  • 0059-remove-tilde
  • 0060-rename-strbuf
  • 0063-module-file-system-hierarchy
  • 0066-better-temporary-lifetimes
  • 0068-const-unsafe-pointers
  • 0069-ascii-literals
  • 0071-const-block-expr
  • 0079-undefined-struct-layout
  • 0085-pattern-macros
  • 0086-plugin-registrar
  • 0087-trait-bounds-with-plus
  • 0089-loadable-lints
  • 0090-lexical-syntax-simplification
  • 0092-struct-grammar
  • 0093-remove-format-intl
  • 0100-partial-cmp
  • 0107-pattern-guards-with-bind-by-move
  • 0109-remove-crate-id
  • 0111-index-traits
  • 0112-remove-cross-borrowing
  • 0114-closures
  • 0115-rm-integer-fallback
  • 0116-no-module-shadowing
  • 0123-share-to-threadsafe
  • 0130-box-not-special
  • 0131-target-specification
  • 0132-ufcs
  • 0135-where
  • 0136-no-privates-in-public
  • 0139-remove-cross-borrowing-entirely
  • 0141-lifetime-elision
  • 0151-capture-by-value
  • 0155-anonymous-impl-only-in-same-module
  • 0160-if-let
  • 0164-feature-gate-slice-pats
  • 0168-mod
  • 0169-use-path-as-id
  • 0184-tuple-accessors
  • 0192-bounds-on-object-and-generic-types
  • 0194-cfg-syntax
  • 0195-associated-items
  • 0198-slice-notation
  • 0199-ownership-variants
  • 0201-error-chaining
  • 0202-subslice-syntax-change
  • 0212-restore-int-fallback
  • 0214-while-let
  • 0216-collection-views
  • 0221-panic
  • 0230-remove-runtime
  • 0231-upvar-capture-inference
  • 0234-variants-namespace
  • 0235-collections-conventions
  • 0236-error-conventions
  • 0240-unsafe-api-location
  • 0246-const-vs-static
  • 0255-object-safety
  • 0256-remove-refcounting-gc-of-t
  • 0326-restrict-xXX-to-ascii
  • 0339-statically-sized-literals
  • 0341-remove-virtual-structs
  • 0342-keywords
  • 0344-conventions-galore
  • 0356-no-module-prefixes
  • 0369-num-reform
  • 0378-expr-macros
  • 0379-remove-reflection
  • 0380-stabilize-std-fmt
  • 0385-module-system-cleanup
  • 0387-higher-ranked-trait-bounds
  • 0390-enum-namespacing
  • 0401-coercions
  • 0403-cargo-build-command
  • 0404-change-prefer-dynamic
  • 0418-struct-variants
  • 0430-finalizing-naming-conventions
  • 0438-precedence-of-plus
  • 0439-cmp-ops-reform
  • 0445-extension-trait-conventions
  • 0446-es6-unicode-escapes
  • 0450-un-feature-gate-some-more-gates
  • 0453-macro-reform
  • 0459-disallow-shadowing
  • 0461-tls-overhaul
  • 0463-future-proof-literal-suffixes
  • 0474-path-reform
  • 0486-std-ascii-reform
  • 0490-dst-syntax
  • 0503-prelude-stabilization
  • 0504-show-stabilization
  • 0509-collections-reform-part-2
  • 0520-new-array-repeat-syntax
  • 0522-self-impl
@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

nominating for p-high, just like all 1.0 polish issues

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member Author

With the amount of stuff that's not implemented in RFCs, I don't think this approach is actually going to be useful.

@tshepang
Copy link
Member

tshepang commented Apr 6, 2015

I think this is a great Issue to keep open, though you may want to remove 1.0 Milestone if there's too much work involved.

@tshepang
Copy link
Member

tshepang commented Apr 6, 2015

One can always leave notes if something may be implemented in future if it's in an RFC.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
P-low Low priority
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants