Tracking issue for file_try_clone

[sfackler]

[bluss]

I think this was intended to be picked up by Rust 1.8 stabilization? @alexcrichton, do you know? There was a wish to stabilize it soon when it was added.

[alexcrichton]

I don't think so, no. I think at the last minute we thought the impl was "weird" so decided to introduce as unstable? Should be an easy FCP next cycle though.

[alexcrichton]

🔔 This issue is now entering its cycle-long final comment period for stabilization in 1.9 🔔

[aturon]

For the record, the naming here is in part justified by the already-stable method on tcp streams.

[SimonSapin]

The naming convention of try_FOO for methods that return Result is also consistent with rust-lang/rfcs#1542 (try_from and try_into).

The try! macro however takes a Result and does not generally return one. So we may end up with try!(x.try_clone()) and try!(y.try_into()) (which sounds repetitive and has two different meaning for the same word) being used a lot… But then if the ? operator sticks around maybe try! will be deprecated or go out of fashion, leaving us with x.try_clone()? and y.try_into()? which looks nicer to me.

[alexcrichton]

The libs team discussed this during triage yesterday and the decision was to stabilize