Revert using the ? syntax for try! in libsyntax #34311
Labels
A-syntaxext
Area: Syntax extensions
Comments
erickt
added a commit
to erickt/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jun 16, 2016
The use of ...?instead of try!(...) in libsyntax makes extracting libsyntax into syntex quite painful since it's not stable yet. This makes backports take a much longer time and causes a lot of problems for the syntex dependencies. Even if it was, it'd take a few release cycles until syntex would be able to use it. Since it's not stable and that this feature is just syntax sugar, it would be most helpful if we could remove it. cc rust-lang#34311
Manishearth
added a commit
to Manishearth/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jun 16, 2016
Revert using ? for try! in the libsyntax pretty printer The use of ...?instead of try!(...) in libsyntax makes extracting libsyntax into syntex quite painful since it's not stable yet. This makes backports take a much longer time and causes a lot of problems for the syntex dependencies. Even if it was, it'd take a few release cycles until syntex would be able to use it. Since it's not stable and that this feature is just syntax sugar, it would be most helpful if we could remove it. cc rust-lang#34311
|
Looks fixed? |
|
Until this line is gone, I'd say this should stay open: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/libsyntax/lib.rs#L35 #![feature(question_mark)] |
|
Update: it's now: |
|
Closing, I am fairly certain that question_mark is stable now. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
The use of
...?instead oftry!(...)in libsyntax makes extracting libsyntax into syntex quite painful since it's not stable yet. This makes backports take a much longer time and causes a lot of problems for the syntex dependencies. Even if it was, it'd take a few release cycles until syntex would be able to use it. Since it's not stable and that this feature is just syntax sugar, it would be most helpful if we could remove it.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: