-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
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
Lower ?
to Try
instead of Carrier
#42275
Conversation
The easy parts of RFC 1859. (Just the trait and the lowering, none of the error message improvements nor the insta-stable impl for Option.)
@@ -0,0 +1,7 @@ | |||
# `try_trait` | |||
|
|||
The tracking issue for this feature is: [#31436] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can we say a bit more here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Added a bit more unstable-book text. I'm uncertain exactly what's supposed to be in it; is there anything in particular you'd like me to address there?
src/libcore/ops.rs
Outdated
/// in terms of a success/failure dichotomy. This trait allows both | ||
/// extracting those success or failure values from an existing instance and | ||
/// creating a new instance from a success or failure value. | ||
#[unstable(feature = "try_trait", issue = "31436")] |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
so I also re-used #31436 as the tracking issue, but I wonder if we should make a new issue just for this feature? It would seem to make things a bit clearer e.g. when we call for FCP...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@nikomatsakis As policy I tend to favor making tracking issues as fine-grained as possible, specifically because of the nightmare that the original ?
RFC became due to needless conflation with catch
.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Created #42327 and updated the attributes.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks good as a start! The only thing that may be worth doing is adding a bit more text into the "unstable book".
cc @pfpacket @peterdelevoryas -- just a heads-up that, when this lands, the (unstable) |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 3119e63 has been approved by |
Lower `?` to `Try` instead of `Carrier` The easy parts of rust-lang/rfcs#1859, whose FCP completed without further comments. Just the trait and the lowering -- neither the error message improvements nor the insta-stable impl for Option nor exhaustive docs. Based on a [github search](https://github.com/search?l=rust&p=1&q=question_mark_carrier&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93), this will break the following: - https://github.com/pfpacket/rust-9p/blob/00206e34c680198a0ac7c2f066cc2954187d4fac/src/serialize.rs#L38 - https://github.com/peterdelevoryas/bufparse/blob/b1325898f4fc2c67658049196c12da82548af350/src/result.rs#L50 The other results appear to be files from libcore or its tests. I could also leave Carrier around after stage0 and `impl<T:Carrier> Try for T` if that would be better. r? @nikomatsakis Edit: Oh, and it might accidentally improve perf, based on rust-lang#37939 (comment), since `Try::into_result` for `Result` is an obvious no-op, unlike `Carrier::translate`.
Lower `?` to `Try` instead of `Carrier` The easy parts of rust-lang/rfcs#1859, whose FCP completed without further comments. Just the trait and the lowering -- neither the error message improvements nor the insta-stable impl for Option nor exhaustive docs. Based on a [github search](https://github.com/search?l=rust&p=1&q=question_mark_carrier&type=Code&utf8=%E2%9C%93), this will break the following: - https://github.com/pfpacket/rust-9p/blob/00206e34c680198a0ac7c2f066cc2954187d4fac/src/serialize.rs#L38 - https://github.com/peterdelevoryas/bufparse/blob/b1325898f4fc2c67658049196c12da82548af350/src/result.rs#L50 The other results appear to be files from libcore or its tests. I could also leave Carrier around after stage0 and `impl<T:Carrier> Try for T` if that would be better. r? @nikomatsakis Edit: Oh, and it might accidentally improve perf, based on rust-lang#37939 (comment), since `Try::into_result` for `Result` is an obvious no-op, unlike `Carrier::translate`.
Direct replacement of std::op::Carrier rust-lang/rust#42275
The easy parts of rust-lang/rfcs#1859, whose FCP completed without further comments.
Just the trait and the lowering -- neither the error message improvements nor the insta-stable impl for Option nor exhaustive docs.
Based on a github search, this will break the following:
The other results appear to be files from libcore or its tests. I could also leave Carrier around after stage0 and
impl<T:Carrier> Try for T
if that would be better.r? @nikomatsakis
Edit: Oh, and it might accidentally improve perf, based on #37939 (comment), since
Try::into_result
forResult
is an obvious no-op, unlikeCarrier::translate
.