Skip to content

Conversation

huonw
Copy link
Contributor

@huonw huonw commented Mar 2, 2015

Unstable is the conservative choice.

cc #22950.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @alexcrichton

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

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Hm, shouldn't this stability level be inherited from the crate itself? That may be a bug though, I'm fine with this for now

@bors: r+ b0e7c58

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@bors: rollup

@huonw
Copy link
Contributor Author

huonw commented Mar 2, 2015

@alexcrichton I thought that stabilities are supposed to inherit only from the parent, which in this case is the struct? (Notably, the first struct is #[stable].)

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

The #[stable] level does not inherit, but all over levels are inherited. So in this case I would expect to inherit the #[unstable] directive from the top of libcore.

@huonw
Copy link
Contributor Author

huonw commented Mar 2, 2015

Oh, I didn't realise that the inheritance just ignored stable entirely, I thought it just became an error to have unmarked children inside stable things. I guess that explains why the structs in std needed annotations in #22803.

Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 3, 2015
@bors bors merged commit b0e7c58 into rust-lang:master Mar 3, 2015
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants