`rustdoc` or `cargo doc` should pass a special `--cfg doc` flag

[kennytm]

Rendered

cc rust-lang/rust#19240

[P1start]

I think this should just be doc. rustdoc sounds specific to the rustdoc tool itself, and so if someone made another documentation tool for Rust called something else, the rustdoc cfg attr wouldn’t really make much sense any more. A generic doc cfg sounds much more general.

[blaenk]

Yeah, doc sounds better to me.

[pcwalton]

+1 on doc.

[nrc]

This is probably a good idea for us to do. However, now is not the time - we are very close to the 1.0 release and this is neither urgent nor has backwards compatibility hazards. Therefore we decided it should be closed as postponed. I created #915 to track this issue for now.

[lfairy]

Should we re-open this RFC?

The proposal seems pretty straightforward, and we're already in the 1.6 cycle.

[nodakai]

Ping?

[mitaa]

I think this is a good idea, but this also means that there must not be any compile errors from any of the #[cfg(doc)]'d items (I imagine this might be a problem, requiring workarounds like dummy items?).

cc rust-lang/rust#1998