Lower ? to Try instead of Carrier
#42275
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
The easy parts of RFC 1859. (Just the trait and the lowering, none of the error message improvements nor the insta-stable impl for Option.)
carols10cents
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Open
12 tasks
| @@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | |||
| # `try_trait` | |||
|
|
|||
| The tracking issue for this feature is: [#31436] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can we say a bit more here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Added a bit more unstable-book text. I'm uncertain exactly what's supposed to be in it; is there anything in particular you'd like me to address there?
src/libcore/ops.rs
Outdated
| /// in terms of a success/failure dichotomy. This trait allows both | ||
| /// extracting those success or failure values from an existing instance and | ||
| /// creating a new instance from a success or failure value. | ||
| #[unstable(feature = "try_trait", issue = "31436")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
so I also re-used #31436 as the tracking issue, but I wonder if we should make a new issue just for this feature? It would seem to make things a bit clearer e.g. when we call for FCP...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nikomatsakis As policy I tend to favor making tracking issues as fine-grained as possible, specifically because of the nightmare that the original ? RFC became due to needless conflation with catch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Created #42327 and updated the attributes.
nikomatsakis
approved these changes
May 30, 2017
|
cc @pfpacket @peterdelevoryas -- just a heads-up that, when this lands, the (unstable) |
11 tasks
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 3119e63 has been approved by |
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 1, 2017
Lower `?` to `Try` instead of `Carrier` The easy parts of rust-lang/rfcs#1859, whose FCP completed without further comments. Just the trait and the lowering -- neither the error message improvements nor the insta-stable impl for Option nor exhaustive docs. Based on a [github search](https://github.com/search?l=rust&p=1&q=question_mark_carrier&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93), this will break the following: - https://github.com/pfpacket/rust-9p/blob/00206e34c680198a0ac7c2f066cc2954187d4fac/src/serialize.rs#L38 - https://github.com/peterdelevoryas/bufparse/blob/b1325898f4fc2c67658049196c12da82548af350/src/result.rs#L50 The other results appear to be files from libcore or its tests. I could also leave Carrier around after stage0 and `impl<T:Carrier> Try for T` if that would be better. r? @nikomatsakis Edit: Oh, and it might accidentally improve perf, based on rust-lang#37939 (comment), since `Try::into_result` for `Result` is an obvious no-op, unlike `Carrier::translate`.
frewsxcv
added a commit
to frewsxcv/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 1, 2017
Lower `?` to `Try` instead of `Carrier` The easy parts of rust-lang/rfcs#1859, whose FCP completed without further comments. Just the trait and the lowering -- neither the error message improvements nor the insta-stable impl for Option nor exhaustive docs. Based on a [github search](https://github.com/search?l=rust&p=1&q=question_mark_carrier&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93), this will break the following: - https://github.com/pfpacket/rust-9p/blob/00206e34c680198a0ac7c2f066cc2954187d4fac/src/serialize.rs#L38 - https://github.com/peterdelevoryas/bufparse/blob/b1325898f4fc2c67658049196c12da82548af350/src/result.rs#L50 The other results appear to be files from libcore or its tests. I could also leave Carrier around after stage0 and `impl<T:Carrier> Try for T` if that would be better. r? @nikomatsakis Edit: Oh, and it might accidentally improve perf, based on rust-lang#37939 (comment), since `Try::into_result` for `Result` is an obvious no-op, unlike `Carrier::translate`.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 1, 2017
pfpacket
added a commit
to pfpacket/rust-9p
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 2, 2017
Direct replacement of std::op::Carrier rust-lang/rust#42275
8 tasks
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The easy parts of rust-lang/rfcs#1859, whose FCP completed without further comments.
Just the trait and the lowering -- neither the error message improvements nor the insta-stable impl for Option nor exhaustive docs.
Based on a github search, this will break the following:
The other results appear to be files from libcore or its tests. I could also leave Carrier around after stage0 and
impl<T:Carrier> Try for Tif that would be better.r? @nikomatsakis
Edit: Oh, and it might accidentally improve perf, based on #37939 (comment), since
Try::into_resultforResultis an obvious no-op, unlikeCarrier::translate.