delete mentions of type ascription from lint descriptions#105614
delete mentions of type ascription from lint descriptions#105614bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
|
r? @Nilstrieb (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
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.
lukas-code
force-pushed
the
ascription
branch
from
e18e0bd to
6abffff
Compare
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
…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
4 participants
Tracking Issue: #101728