MIR: change "lvalue" terminology to "place".#46425
Conversation
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
@bors r+ p=1 |
|
📌 Commit 0f7e416 has been approved by |
|
Giving high priority because bitrot probability is high. |
kennytm
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #46236) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
@bors r=nikomatsakis |
|
📌 Commit 473f044 has been approved by |
|
@bors r=15 |
|
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
|
📌 Commit 473f044 has been approved by |
|
oops sorry @bors r=nikomatsakis p=15 |
|
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
|
📌 Commit 473f044 has been approved by |
MIR: change "lvalue" terminology to "place". As pointed out elsewhere, "lvalue" vs "rvalue" is a misleading/obscure distinction and several other choices have been proposed, the one I prefer being "place" vs "value". This PR only touches the "lvalue" side, and only in MIR-related code, as it's already a lot and could rot.
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Replace "lvalue" terminology with "place". See #46425 for the previous PR (which only changed MIR-related code). r? @nikomatsakis
5 participants
As pointed out elsewhere, "lvalue" vs "rvalue" is a misleading/obscure distinction and several other choices have been proposed, the one I prefer being "place" vs "value".
This PR only touches the "lvalue" side, and only in MIR-related code, as it's already a lot and could rot.