Skip to content

/rust

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

std: Revert addition of `into_ascii_*` methods #32314

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Mar 19, 2016

Conversation

Reviewers
No reviews
Assignees

@aturon aturon

Labels
T-libs beta-accepted
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
6 participants
@alexcrichton @rust-highfive @aturon @bors @eddyb @brson
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

alexcrichton commented Mar 17, 2016

The addition of these methods in #31335 required adding impls of the trait for
the String and Vec<T> types. This unfortunately caused a regression (#32074)
in type inference for using these methods which the libs team has decided to not
push forward with. These methods were stabilized in #32020 which was intended to
get backported to beta, but the backport hasn't happened just yet. This commit
reverts both the addition and stabilization of these methods.

One proposed method of handling this, in #32076, was to move the methods to an
extra trait to avoid conflicts with type inference. After some discussion,
however, the libs team concluded that we probably want to reevaluate what we're
doing here, so discussion will continue on the tracking issue, #27809.

Closes #32074
@alexcrichton
std: Revert addition of `into_ascii_*` methods 
The addition of these methods in #31335 required adding impls of the trait for
the `String` and `Vec<T>` types. This unfortunately caused a regression (#32074)
in type inference for using these methods which the libs team has decided to not
push forward with. These methods were stabilized in #32020 which was intended to
get backported to beta, but the backport hasn't happened just yet. This commit
reverts both the addition and stabilization of these methods.

One proposed method of handling this, in #32076, was to move the methods to an
extra trait to avoid conflicts with type inference. After some discussion,
however, the libs team concluded that we probably want to reevaluate what we're
doing here, so discussion will continue on the tracking issue, #27809.
Loading status checks…
af65d81

@rust-highfive rust-highfive assigned brson Mar 17, 2016

@rust-highfive

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Collaborator

rust-highfive commented Mar 17, 2016

r? @brson

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

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member Author

alexcrichton commented Mar 17, 2016

Nominating for beta inclusion as well to fix the inference regression caused by using the stable methods.

@alexcrichton alexcrichton added beta-nominated T-libs labels Mar 17, 2016

@alexcrichton

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member Author

alexcrichton commented Mar 17, 2016

r? @aturon

@rust-highfive rust-highfive assigned aturon and unassigned brson Mar 17, 2016

@alexcrichton alexcrichton referenced this pull request Mar 17, 2016

Closed

Regression in autoderef on ascii traits #32074

@aturon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Mar 18, 2016

Can you run crater on this change? I see some hits on github code search...
@alexcrichton

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member Author

alexcrichton commented Mar 18, 2016

Crater reports one regression which seems to be spurious?
@aturon

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Mar 18, 2016

@bors: r+
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 18, 2016

📌 Commit af65d81 has been approved by aturon
@eddyb

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Mar 19, 2016

@alexcrichton Would it make sense to have a regression test for #32074?
@bors

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Mar 19, 2016

⌛️ Testing commit af65d81 with merge 151be09...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Mar 19, 2016

@bors
Auto merge of #32314 - alexcrichton:ascii-fun, r=aturon 
std: Revert addition of `into_ascii_*` methods

The addition of these methods in #31335 required adding impls of the trait for
the `String` and `Vec<T>` types. This unfortunately caused a regression (#32074)
in type inference for using these methods which the libs team has decided to not
push forward with. These methods were stabilized in #32020 which was intended to
get backported to beta, but the backport hasn't happened just yet. This commit
reverts both the addition and stabilization of these methods.

One proposed method of handling this, in #32076, was to move the methods to an
extra trait to avoid conflicts with type inference. After some discussion,
however, the libs team concluded that we probably want to reevaluate what we're
doing here, so discussion will continue on the tracking issue, #27809.

Closes #32074
151be09
@alexcrichton

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view
Copy link
Member Author

alexcrichton commented Mar 19, 2016

@eddyb good point, I'll add that if this bounces or in another PR if it lands
@bors

@bors bors merged commit af65d81 into rust-lang:master Mar 19, 2016
2 checks passed

2 checks passed

continuous-integration/travis-ci/pr The Travis CI build passed
Details
homu Test successful
Details

@aturon aturon referenced this pull request Mar 21, 2016

Closed

Tracking issue for make_ascii_{upper,lower}case #27809

@alexcrichton alexcrichton added the beta-accepted label Mar 24, 2016

@alexcrichton alexcrichton referenced this pull request Mar 24, 2016

Merged

backport: Revert addition of `into_ascii_*` methods #32467

@alexcrichton alexcrichton deleted the alexcrichton:ascii-fun branch Mar 27, 2016

@alexcrichton alexcrichton removed the beta-nominated label Mar 30, 2016

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.