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

delete mentions of type ascription from lint descriptions #105614

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Dec 13, 2022

Conversation

lukas-code
Copy link
Contributor

Tracking Issue: #101728

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Dec 12, 2022

r? @Nilstrieb

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Dec 12, 2022
/// warning in the future, possibly with [type ascription] providing a
/// convenient way to work around the current issues. See [RFC 401] for
/// historical context.
/// warning in the future. See [RFC 401] for historical context.
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I don't think we should say that this may become a warning in the future without a reason. I'll leave it to you to decide whether we should remove the sentence about the warning (after all, we are free to raise any lints to warn however we choose, removing this doesn't make that impossible in the future) or whether we should keep a mention of type ascription (as that feature may still be added in the future with good syntax).

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I've put back that we might add syntax for coercions without calling it "type ascription" and moved type ascription to the "historical context" section instead. My main motivation here is to deter people from using type ascription in its current form, especially in the stable documentation.

Move it to the historical context section instead.
@Nilstrieb
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 12, 2022

📌 Commit 6abffff has been approved by Nilstrieb

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Dec 12, 2022
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 12, 2022
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 8 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#104405 (1.66.0 release notes)
 - rust-lang#105561 (Normalize receiver substs and erase the regions)
 - rust-lang#105593 (Fix typo in comment: length_limit)
 - rust-lang#105597 (Correct typos in `core::sync::Exclusive::get_{pin_mut, mut}`)
 - rust-lang#105614 (delete mentions of type ascription from lint descriptions)
 - rust-lang#105615 (Fixup method doc that mentions removed param)
 - rust-lang#105616 (Add a "the" to proc_macro documentation)
 - rust-lang#105619 (rustdoc: remove no-op CSS `.source pre { overflow: auto }`)

Failed merges:

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit c8b07c0 into rust-lang:master Dec 13, 2022
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.68.0 milestone Dec 13, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

None yet

4 participants