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

document constant expressions in rust.md reference manual #5551

Closed
pnkfelix opened this Issue Mar 26, 2013 · 12 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
6 participants
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

pnkfelix commented Mar 26, 2013

The section on "static items" (formerly entitled "constants") refers to some class of "constant expressions", but we have not defined what these are.

(I think catamorphism has noted this via comments in a few issues I have seen, but I have not seen an actual Issue for this topic; so I am promoting it to a full fledged issue.)

In particular, if we need a subgrammar, or some other sort of static analysis to classify the constant expressions correctly, then we should document it.

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented May 23, 2013

For example, should constant expressions include the production
const-expr ::= (const-expr as type)
as desired by issue #4063

@catamorphism

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

catamorphism commented Jul 15, 2013

Visiting for triage. Still important.

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Oct 8, 2013

Another question, should constant expressions include the production
const-expr ::= const-expr . id
for field access on static constant struct values? (We currently explicitly fail to const-eval such expressions; but it seems like a potentially desirable feature; see e.g. #9762)

@brson

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Apr 8, 2014

Nominating for removal from milestone.

@brson brson added the I-nominated label Apr 8, 2014

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Apr 9, 2014

@brson you think we can release 1.0 without a formal definition for the constant expression sublanguage?

@pnkfelix

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member Author

pnkfelix commented Apr 10, 2014

Okay, we can live with shipping 1.0 without this, though it would be really good to have something nailed-down (and documented).

Taking off the 1.0 milestone, but leaving as P-high to reflect its importance.

@pnkfelix pnkfelix removed this from the 1.0 milestone Apr 10, 2014

@brson brson removed the I-nominated label Apr 10, 2014

@steveklabnik

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

steveklabnik commented Feb 13, 2015

We now do not refer to 'constant expressions' in the reference at all, and the section on statics seems fine to me. Giving this a close.

@nikomatsakis

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Contributor

nikomatsakis commented Feb 27, 2015

@steveklabnik I'm not sure I agree with this assessment. I guess it depends on what level of precision we are shooting for.

@steveklabnik steveklabnik reopened this Feb 27, 2015

@steveklabnik

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

steveklabnik commented Feb 27, 2015

Okay, fill me in :)

@steveklabnik

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

steveklabnik commented Mar 4, 2016

Triage: have had several conversations about this, never quite been sure exactly what we want to put and where.

@steveklabnik

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Member

steveklabnik commented Mar 23, 2017

The reference is now in its own repo, so I have migrated this issue: rust-lang-nursery/reference#18

Side note: wow, a four digit issue ID. An endangered species at this point...

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.