Skip to content

Instantly share code, notes, and snippets.

@chriskrycho
Last active January 21, 2018 01:50
Show Gist options
  • Star 1 You must be signed in to star a gist
  • Fork 3 You must be signed in to fork a gist
  • Save chriskrycho/8097713374a166fc3482ac64e81c0952 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Save chriskrycho/8097713374a166fc3482ac64e81c0952 to your computer and use it in GitHub Desktop.
Status (as best it is known) of RFCs not yet documented or tracked in https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/reference/issues/9

With full credit where it is due: to @EH2406, who put the original together (here). Note that I'm doing a quick pass and confirming each of these as I get to them.

Need documentation - * means this is (should be) in the expressions chapter rewrite

  • #0241: deref-conversions 8.3.2 is missing one (arguably)
  • #0940: hyphens-considered-harmful partially in 6.1.2.1, but it links to the RFC
  • #0953: op-assign, the reference ignores this. (std documentation exists though) *

Stabilized; not reviewed

  • #0087: trait-bounds-with-plus
  • #0090: lexical-syntax-simplification
  • #0116: no-module-shadowing
  • #0130: box-not-special
  • #0136: no-privates-in-public
  • #0141: lifetime-elision documented int nomicon and book but it is not in the reference
  • #0192: bounds-on-object-and-generic-types
  • #0194: cfg-syntax
  • #0195: associated-items
  • #0201: error-chaining
  • #0212: restore-int-fallback
  • #0213: defaulted-type-params
  • #0221: panic
  • #0234: variants-namespace
  • #0235: collections-conventions "This is a combined conventions and library stabilization RFC." so I am alsowe adding it to the conventions list.
  • #0243: trait-based-exception-handling The "?", not entirely implemented.
  • #0255: object-safety
  • #0320: nonzeroing-dynamic-drop
  • #0339: statically-sized-literals
  • #0369: num-reform
  • #0380: stabilize-std-fmt
  • #0387: higher-ranked-trait-bounds
  • #0401: coercions
  • #0404: change-prefer-dynamic
  • #0438: precedence-of-plus
  • #0447: no-unused-impl-parameters
  • #0458: send-improvements
  • #0459: disallow-shadowing
  • #0461: tls-overhaul
  • #0463: future-proof-literal-suffixes
  • #0474: path-reform
  • #0486: std-ascii-reform
  • #0490: dst-syntax
  • #0494: c_str-and-c_vec-stability
  • #0501: consistent_no_prelude_attributes no STD things.
  • #0503: prelude-stabilization
  • #0504: show-stabilization
  • #0509: collections-reform-part-2
  • #0517: io-os-reform
  • #0522: self-impl
  • #0526: fmt-text-writer
  • #0529: conversion-traits
  • #0546: Self-not-sized-by-default
  • #0572: rustc-attribute
  • #0587: fn-return-should-be-an-associated-type
  • #0592: c-str-deref
  • #0593: forbid-Self-definitions
  • #0599: default-object-bound
  • #0601: replace-be-with-become
  • #0640: debug-improvements
  • #0702: rangefull-expression
  • #0735: allow-inherent-impls-anywhere
  • #0736: privacy-respecting-fru
  • #0738: variance
  • #0769: sound-generic-drop replaced by 1238
  • #0823: hash-simplification
  • #0832: from-elem-with-love
  • #0839: embrace-extend-extinguish
  • #0840: no-panic-in-c-string.md Update 0840-no-panic-in-c-string
  • #0879: small-base-lexing
  • #0909: move-thread-local-to-std-thread
  • #0921: entry_v3
  • #0979: align-splitn-with-other-languages
  • #0980: read-exact
  • #0982: dst-coercion
  • #1011: process.exit
  • #1014: stdout-existential-crisis
  • #1023: rebalancing-coherence orphan rules
  • #1030: prelude-additions
  • #1040: duration-reform
  • #1044: io-fs-2.1
  • #1047: socket-timeouts
  • #1048: rename-soft-link-to-symlink
  • #1135: raw-pointer-comparisons
  • #1156: adjust-default-object-bounds
  • #1174: into-raw-fd-socket-handle-traits
  • #1184: stabilize-no_std
  • #1193: cap-lints FCP in pr not issue. It is just a rustc flag.
  • #1194: set-recovery stable in 1.9
  • #1212: line-endings
  • #1219: use-group-as
  • #1229: compile-time-asserts maybe prosses.
  • #1240: repr-packed-unsafe-ref Tracking issue is open, but the segfalts are not seen on playpen.
  • #1252: open-options partially stableized.
  • #1257: drain-range-2 partially stableized.
  • #1260: main-reexport So the tracking issue is open, but the implomantation is merged, and I think it is insta-stable;
  • #1268: allow-overlapping-impls-on-marker-traits
  • #1270: deprecation
  • #1288: time-improvements
  • #1291: promote-libc
  • #1300: intrinsic-semantics
  • #1307: osstring-methods
  • #1328: global-panic-handler
  • #1359: process-ext-unix partially stableized.
  • #1415: trim-std-os stable in 1.8
  • #1443: extended-compare-and-swap
  • #1461: net2-mutators stable in 1.9
  • #1467: volatile
  • #1479: unix-socket
  • #1492: dotdot-in-patterns tracking issue
  • #1506: adt-kinds tagged B-unstable and open, but both parts are FCP approved.
  • #1510: cdylib.md Rename 1510-rdylib.md to 1510-cdylib
  • #1513: less-unwinding
  • #1535: stable-overflow-checks maybe just a rustc details.
  • #1552: contains-method-for-various-collections
  • #1560: name-resolution
  • #1717: dllimport partially insta-stable
  • #1679: panic-safe-slicing partially stable

Reviewed

Not yet stabilized

(new)

  • #0202: subslice-syntax-change (in fact all of slice patterns)
  • #0803: type-ascription
  • #1845: shared-from-slice
  • #1860: manually drop
  • #1869: eprintln
  • #1884: unstable-sort

Documentation Not Required

Already documented in reference

Already documented in std

(new)

Closures

closures are documented in 8.1.10 Closure types and 7.2.15 Lambda expressions. It neads to cover all the changes in:

  • #0114: closures
  • #0151: capture-by-value
  • #0231: upvar-capture-inference more unboxed closures.
  • #0968: closure-return-type-syntax

Macros

Some one more expert needs to check if all of these are documented:

  • #0085: pattern-macros
  • #0378: expr-macros
  • #0453: macro-reform
  • #0550: macro-future-proofing wow, I don't get this one.
  • #0873: type-macros
  • #1681: macros-1.1 stable in 1.15

Cargo Things

@williamyaoh
Copy link

williamyaoh commented Apr 4, 2017

Just checking: this gist is the definitive current status of what needs to be done, right?
I'm seeing RFCs on the "need to review" list from #9 that have been moved to reviewed, like RFC 0086. Which listing is correct?

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment