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

Stabilize Ident::new_raw #59002

wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master


None yet
7 participants
Copy link

adnanademovic commented Mar 7, 2019

Tracking issue: #54723


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

rust-highfive commented Mar 7, 2019

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @alexcrichton (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

alexcrichton commented Mar 8, 2019

There's some discussion about stabilization in the tracking issue and it looks like one of the main questions is about the name of the API (Ident::new_raw, Ident::raw, etc). @petrochenkov notes that raw identifiers are now stabilized which was one of the main reasons (IIRC) for not stabilizing this from before.

In light of all that I'd personally be in favor of the current new_raw name and would like to propose stabilization! I've tagged T-libs for the API aspect and T-lang as well because they were tagged on the tracking issue. If T-lang y'all don't feel you need to sign off, I'll cancel and re-issue FCP!

@rfcbot fcp merge


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

rfcbot commented Mar 8, 2019

Team member @alexcrichton has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:


Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.


This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

Centril commented Mar 8, 2019

(Including T-Lang on this was proper as this exposes language features programmatically...)

I agree that the name is fine; I would also be alright with Ident::new -- either way works and it's not a big deal either way.

I do however think that the documentation on the function is a bit underwhelming; In particular, the semantics of new_raw is unclear wrt. panics (e.g. for r#self... -- cc @petrochenkov). On the subject of clear semantics, I'd also like to be pointed towards the set of tests (run-pass, run-fail, etc.) that provide checks on the semantics... To that end:

@rfcbot concern tests-and-clearer-docs

@Centril Centril added this to the 1.35 milestone Mar 8, 2019

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.