split MaybeUninit into several features, expand docs a bit #58468
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @shepmaster (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Closed
3 tasks
Centril
reviewed
Feb 14, 2019
|
r? @Centril I think this is a good step allowing us to do incremental progress in a reasonable way... ...As such, r=me with green travis. If team members disagree with this incremental approach, feel free to r-. |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 95ef9b4 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This splits the
maybe_uninitfeature gate into several:maybe_uninitfor what we will hopefully stabilize soon-ish.maybe_uninit_reffor creating references intoMaybeUninit, for which the rules are not yet clear.maybe_uninit_slicefor handling slices ofMaybeUninit, which needs more API design work.maybe_uninit_arrayfor creating arrays ofMaybeUninitusing a macro (because we don't have Tracking issue for RFC 2203, "Constants in array repeat expressions" #49147 yet).Is that an okay thing to do? The goal is to help people avoid APIs we do not want to stabilize yet. I used this to make sure rustc itself does not use
get_refandget_mut.I also extended the docs to advise against uninitialized integers -- again this is something for which the rules are still being discussed.