Revert overloaded slice notation being merged with library slicing #17715
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
|
|
aturon
changed the title
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2014
This PR reverts #17620, which caused a significant regression for slices. As discussed with @alexcrichton, all of the public-facing changes of the earlier PR need to be rolled back, and it's not clear that we should move the libraries over to this new notation yet anyway (especially given its feature-gated status). Closes #17710
alexcrichton
added a commit
to alexcrichton/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2014
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 2, 2014
This PR reverts #17620, which caused a significant regression for slices. As discussed with @alexcrichton, all of the public-facing changes of the earlier PR need to be rolled back, and it's not clear that we should move the libraries over to this new notation yet anyway (especially given its feature-gated status). Closes #17710
| @@ -70,7 +70,6 @@ static KNOWN_FEATURES: &'static [(&'static str, Status)] = &[ | |||
| ("tuple_indexing", Active), | |||
| ("associated_types", Active), | |||
| ("visible_private_types", Active), | |||
| ("slicing_syntax", Active), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Did this mean to revert the actual feature gate itself?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not intentionally, but we were trying to revert the commits on master as quickly as possible and didn't notice this until too late. @nick29581 was planning to send in a PR to add back the feature gate right away, not sure if that happened yet.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Its #17807, which you're r?'ed for :-)
RalfJung
pushed a commit
to RalfJung/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2024
… r=Veykril fix: let glob imports override other globs' visibility Follow up to rust-lang#14930 Fixes rust-lang#11858 Fixes rust-lang#14902 Fixes rust-lang#17704 I haven't reworked the code here at all - I don't feel confident in the codebase to do so - just rebased it onto the current main branch and fixed conflicts. I'm not _entirely_ sure I understand the structure of the `check` function in `crates/hir-def/src/nameres` tests. I think the change to the test expectation from rust-lang#14930 is correct, marking the `crate::reexport::inner` imports with `i`, and I understand it to mean there's a specific token in the import that we can match it to (in this case, `Trait`, `function` and `makro` of `pub use crate::defs::{Trait, function, makro};` respectively), but I had some trouble understanding the meaning of the different parts of `PerNs` to be sure. Does this make sense? I tested building and using RA locally with `cargo xtask install` and after this change the documentation for `arrow_array::ArrowPrimitiveType` seems to be picked up correctly!
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 PR reverts #17620, which caused a significant regression for slices.
As discussed with @alexcrichton, all of the public-facing changes of the earlier PR need to be rolled back, and it's not clear that we should move the libraries over to this new notation yet anyway (especially given its feature-gated status).
Closes #17710