-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
trpl: Additions & fixes for syntax index. #29391
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
Conversation
0e6e0ba
to
b3ea7b1
Compare
* `extern crate bar = foo` (removed 0.12): syntax for `extern crate foo as bar`. | ||
* `use bar = foo` (removed 0.12): syntax for `use foo as bar`. | ||
* `<Sized? ident>` (removed 0.12): syntax for `<ident: ?Sized>`. | ||
* `Gc<type>` (removed 0.12): smart-pointer type; replaced by `Rc<type>` and `Arc<type>`. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't think it is wise to include this as "deprecated". The syntax can still work when Gc
is defined in an external crate like https://github.com/Manishearth/rust-gc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm on the fence about Gc
; the intent is for people looking at old code to figure out what it means. Since Gc
was completely removed, they can't rely on deprecation warnings or the like. But, as you say, it's possible that it might be reintroduced somehow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The syntax was @T
, OTOH Gc<T>
is not special syntax, "just" a library type.
b3ea7b1
to
d29e63b
Compare
I am not sure that I like the idea of including deprecated/removed syntax here. |
I agree with @steveklabnik |
After two weeks of thought, yes, please remove the stuff that's deprecated / removed. After that, let's get this merged! |
@steveklabnik Will do. I went to do this earlier, but |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #29932) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
@ping! @DanielKeep I'm willing to test the changes before merging if you want to keep this PR alive. |
d29e63b
to
a67c3bc
Compare
* `const`: Add reference to raw pointers * Change `expr!(...)` etc. examples to use `ident` instead. *Technically*, it should be `pat`, but that's not how it works in practice. * `|`: add reference to closure syntax. * Closure syntax entry. * Indexing and slicing entries.
a67c3bc
to
a34274c
Compare
I've removed the obsolete section and rebased to latest master. |
@bors: r+ rollup |
📌 Commit a34274c has been approved by |
* `const`: Add reference to raw pointers * Change `expr!(...)` etc. examples to use `ident` instead. *Technically*, it should be `pat`, but that's not how it works in practice. * `|`: add reference to closure syntax. * Closure syntax entry. * Indexing and slicing entries. * Add history of obsolete and deprecated syntax. r? @steveklabnik
const
: Add reference to raw pointersexpr!(...)
etc. examples to useident
instead.Technically, it should be
pat
, but that's not how it works inpractice.
|
: add reference to closure syntax.r? @steveklabnik