You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
Repository navigation
Tracking issue for Consistent no-prelude attribute (RFC 501) #20561
I think in theory primitive type definitions come from std::*.
So if no_std or no_prelude is on there should not been primitive type definitions.
And I suggest we make alias of primitive types to a place like std::primitive_definition::*, so we write codes below to perform as no_std today:
#![no_std]use std::primitive_definition::*
I know this change sounds trivial but current behavior is pretty ugly, see #22093
cc @mahkoh
Triage: so. This RFC happened pre-1.0, yet never landed. And it seems no_implicit_prelude does work on stable today. So, this would have to not be a re-naming, but a deprecation + new name?
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.
Activity
aturon commentedon Jan 5, 2015
cc @Kimundi
bombless commentedon Mar 5, 2015
I think in theory primitive type definitions come from
std::*.So if
no_stdorno_preludeis on there should not been primitive type definitions.And I suggest we make alias of primitive types to a place like
std::primitive_definition::*, so we write codes below to perform asno_stdtoday:I know this change sounds trivial but current behavior is pretty ugly, see #22093
cc @mahkoh
steveklabnik commentedon Nov 30, 2016
Triage: so. This RFC happened pre-1.0, yet never landed. And it seems
no_implicit_preludedoes work on stable today. So, this would have to not be a re-naming, but a deprecation + new name?Kimundi commentedon Dec 3, 2016
Seems there has been a patch to implement this early this year, but it bitrottet: #32025
pnkfelix commentedon Mar 4, 2022
@rustbot label +S-tracking-design-concerns
As noted by @petrochenkov here and @oli-obk here, its not clear if this change is still well-motivated.
pnkfelix commentedon Mar 4, 2022
Discussed at today's T-compiler backlog bonanza.
I propose we close this until someone who can drive it comes forward and can motivate doing this at this point.
@rfcbot fcp close
rfcbot commentedon Mar 4, 2022
Team member @pnkfelix has proposed to close this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
No concerns currently listed.
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.
rfcbot commentedon May 19, 2022
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔
rfcbot commentedon May 29, 2022
The final comment period, with a disposition to close, as per the review above, is now complete.
As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.
lcnr commentedon May 30, 2022
Merge pull request rust-lang#20561 from ChayimFriedman2/no-table-for-you