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

language version markers #3392

Closed
graydon opened this Issue Sep 5, 2012 · 10 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
5 participants
@graydon
Copy link
Contributor

graydon commented Sep 5, 2012

We need a way (using the hash-comment "pre-parse" form similar to shebang comments) to mark a crate's (symbolic) language version, so we don't try parsing rust when we don't have a parser that can handle it. We'll mandate the presence of this sort of marker on a packaged-for-distribution rust file.

@ghost ghost assigned graydon Sep 5, 2012

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Mar 25, 2013

This need not block 0.6.

@graydon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

graydon commented May 2, 2013

nominating for backwards compatible

@graydon

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor Author

graydon commented Jun 20, 2013

accepted for backwards-compatible milestone

@cmr

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

cmr commented Aug 5, 2013

Visiting for triage; nothing to add

@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jun 11, 2014

Nominating. This ought to be done with #3795.

@brson brson added the I-nominated label Jun 11, 2014

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Jun 12, 2014

If you want fully-general language versioning, then the approach of #3795 does not seem sufficient.

(In particular, you still need to be able to parse in order to deal with the #[cfg(..)] attributes, so how would you deal with parser changes...)

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Jun 12, 2014

(we're going to leave I-nominated so we can wait until next week and see if @brson can explain his thoughts further.)

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Jun 12, 2014

((it seems like some of the discussion on #3795 elaborates further on what @brson might have been thinking. E.g. @cmr said there that one should only attempt to work at the level of per-crate granularity, which would probably side-step the parser issue, though I think that per-crate may be too coarse -- per mod-in-a-file is more what I was thinking...))

@graydon graydon removed their assignment Jun 16, 2014

@brson brson added P-low and removed P-backcompat-lang labels Jun 19, 2014

@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jun 19, 2014

P-low, not 1.0

@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jan 13, 2015

If something ever happens here it will be done as-needed. It's not really on the horizon right now. Closing.

@brson brson closed this Jan 13, 2015

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.