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

Meta-RFC: Prior art #2333

Merged
merged 7 commits into from Feb 27, 2018
Merged

Meta-RFC: Prior art #2333

merged 7 commits into from Feb 27, 2018

Conversation

Centril
Copy link
Contributor

@Centril Centril commented Feb 12, 2018

🖼️ Rendered

📝 Summary

Adds a Prior art section to the RFC template where RFC authors may discuss the experience of other programming languages and their communities with respect to what is being proposed. This section may also discuss theoretical work such as papers.

💖 Thanks

My thanks to @ashleygwilliams for reviewing.
I'd also like to thank @nagisa for the neat section naming and
@scottmcm for giving me great critique which improved the RFC a lot.

@Centril Centril added the T-core Relevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the RFC. label Feb 12, 2018
need to explain the minutiae of the theoretical background. The finer details
can instead be referred to the referred-to papers.

## An improved historical record of Rust for posterity
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

👍

@aturon
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Feb 14, 2018

I think this is a great step. Kicking off core team review:

@rfcbot fcp merge

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Feb 14, 2018

Team member @aturon has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@rfcbot rfcbot added the proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of all team members in order to enter the final comment period. label Feb 14, 2018
0000-template.md Outdated Show resolved Hide resolved
@wycats
Copy link
Contributor

wycats commented Feb 14, 2018

I'd like the section to communicate that there are cases where Rust intentionally diverges from common or popular prior art.

An example of this would be exceptions: Rust doesn't have them. In an RFC to add additional sugar to our Result system to make it similar to exceptions, it would be important to identify why the intentional divergence we already made isn't applicable to the sugar. This is, of course, exactly what the discussion about using catch terminology is about, and this RFC provides a great place for these considerations to come to a fore.

@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented Feb 15, 2018

👍 This section would have been badly needed back when this ? operator got added which now sadly means something completely different as in other languages.

You should add as drawback however that a longer template makes it harder to contribute to the RFC process via writing an RFC as you now need to fill in more sections. It might also intimidate people who don't know many other languages and think they are expected to know a wide range of them otherwise their contribution is not welcome.

@Centril
Copy link
Contributor Author

Centril commented Feb 15, 2018

@wycats @est31 - I've tried to address your concerns... Tell me what you think =)

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Feb 16, 2018

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@rfcbot rfcbot added final-comment-period Will be merged/postponed/closed in ~10 calendar days unless new substational objections are raised. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Currently awaiting signoff of all team members in order to enter the final comment period. labels Feb 16, 2018
@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented Feb 18, 2018

@Centril sorry I should have said it earlier, but it is perfect. Thank you!

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Feb 26, 2018

The final comment period is now complete.

@Centril Centril merged commit a488ca0 into rust-lang:master Feb 27, 2018
@Centril
Copy link
Contributor Author

Centril commented Feb 27, 2018

Huzzah! The RFC is merged!

Tracking issue: None, the RFC is self executing.

@Centril Centril deleted the rfc/prior-art branch February 27, 2018 20:06
@glaebhoerl
Copy link
Contributor

(Should currently active RFC PRs also be updated to have a prior art section?)

@Centril
Copy link
Contributor Author

Centril commented Feb 27, 2018

@glaebhoerl: I wouldn't say it is required for RFCs before the new format, but it would be nice, and reviewers can help with providing prior art where such is known. You could also create PRs against the PRs... =)

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-meta Proposals about how we make proposals final-comment-period Will be merged/postponed/closed in ~10 calendar days unless new substational objections are raised. T-core Relevant to the core team, which will review and decide on the RFC.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

7 participants