semantics of $($x:tt)?* were changed in Rust 2015, should revert
#51416
Assignees
Labels
P-high
High priority
regression-from-stable-to-beta
Performance or correctness regression from stable to beta.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
|
I'm just opening this issue to help in tracking! |
nikomatsakis
added
P-high
pietroalbini
added
regression-from-stable-to-beta
This was referenced Jun 7, 2018
Merged
|
@nikomatsakis Can we please implement @mark-i-m's PR that changes this behaviour (to make it more consistent) for the 2018 edition though? |
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jun 7, 2018
…tsakis Revert rust-lang#49719 This also needs to be backported into beta. Fixes rust-lang#51416. r? @nikomatsakis
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
There has been a lot of discussion about the proper semantics of
$($x:tt)?*. Ideally,?would serve as the "optional" operator there, but that is not the semantics in stable Rust, where it serves as a separator. #49719 did a crater run which found no crates relying on the current behavior; however, that PR was merged without an official decision from the lang team on whether to change the behavior. We should revert that PR and then make an official decision (for example, one proposal implemented in #51336 is to change the behavior in the edition, though in that case we probably want a migration lint etc).@pietroalbini is going to prepare the revert PR and backport
( cc @mark-i-m, @sgrif, @petrochenkov @alexreg @durka )
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: