Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 31 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign upName resolution has changed between 1.7.0 and 1.8.0 #33458
Comments
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
cc @jseyfried @nrc FWIW I think 62 makes more sense, intuitively speaking, but the subtle change is a bit terrifying |
nagisa
added
I-nominated
T-lang
labels
May 6, 2016
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Nominating for T-lang discussion. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This was intentional, see #31105. |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
This likely means that the change wasn’t communicated well enough? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
Yes, for future reference, anything marked |
nikomatsakis
removed
the
I-nominated
label
May 12, 2016
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
We discussed this in the @rust-lang/lang meeting. The conclusion was that the change was legit (a bug fix), but there was a process failure in that we failed to tag the breaking change with "relnotes". D'oh, but I think this change had only very minor impact in practice? |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
I also think so. I sometimes stumble upon such dark corners of the language, but it is only because we try to reimplement compiler fronted in IntelliJ Rust. We probably should close the issue, thanks for the clarification! |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I agree that this change had very minor impact in practice -- constants and local variables can only have the same name by violating naming conventions, and We have landed other [breaking-change] bug fixes with similarly low likelihoods of breakage (#32923, #32134, #32006, #31908, #31824, #30866, #30295, #30294, #32141, #31461) -- should these all have been tagged |
jseyfried
referenced this issue
May 24, 2016
Merged
Perform `cfg` attribute processing during macro expansion and fix bugs #33706
jseyfried
referenced this issue
Jun 10, 2016
Merged
Support `#[macro_use]` on macro-expanded crates #34032
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I think yes, they should be in the release notes. The release notes might help someone figuring out what's going on when they see some code breaking (maybe a breaking change had unintended/unforeseen consequences) |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
I think this is the intended behavior and the issue should be closed. |
matklad commentedMay 6, 2016
•
edited
The following program:
prints
92with rustc 1.7.0 and62with rustc 1.8.0. Is this intentional? I have not found a mention in the release notes. Also the reference could be a bit more clear on the scoping rules :)