Skip to content

Tracking issue for mpsc::Receiver::try_iter #34931

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Closed
mitchmindtree opened this issue Jul 20, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Tracking issue for mpsc::Receiver::try_iter #34931

mitchmindtree opened this issue Jul 20, 2016 · 6 comments
Labels
B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@mitchmindtree
Copy link
Contributor

Tracking issue for the new non-blocking mpsc::Receiver iterator API introduced in #34724.

The API is currently gated behind the unstable receiver_try_iter feature.

The API includes:

  • std::sync::mpsc::Receiver::try_iter
  • std::sync::mpsc::TryIter

cc @alexcrichton

mitchmindtree added a commit to mitchmindtree/rust that referenced this issue Jul 20, 2016
@alexcrichton alexcrichton added T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. labels Jul 20, 2016
@mitchmindtree
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey folks, just thought I'd ping this and ask if there's anything I can do to help guide this towards stable? Would love to start using it, but no worries if it's just low on the priority list 👍

@leroycep
Copy link

I'd like to know the same thing as mitchmindtree. Is this being guide towards stable?

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@rfcbot fcp merge

Seems like a nifty API to have!

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Nov 1, 2016

Team member @alexcrichton has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

No concerns currently listed.

Once these reviewers reach consensus, this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Nov 14, 2016

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

psst @alexcrichton, I wasn't able to add the final-comment-period label, please do so.

@alexcrichton alexcrichton added the final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. label Nov 14, 2016
@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Nov 24, 2016

The final comment period is now complete.

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 18, 2016
Library stabilizations/deprecations for 1.15 release

Stabilized:

- `std::iter::Iterator::{min_by, max_by}`
- `std::os::*::fs::FileExt`
- `std::sync::atomic::Atomic*::{get_mut, into_inner}`
- `std::vec::IntoIter::{as_slice, as_mut_slice}`
- `std::sync::mpsc::Receiver::try_iter`
- `std::os::unix::process::CommandExt::before_exec`
- `std::rc::Rc::{strong_count, weak_count}`
- `std::sync::Arc::{strong_count, weak_count}`
- `std::char::{encode_utf8, encode_utf16}`
- `std::cell::Ref::clone`
- `std::io::Take::into_inner`

Deprecated:

- `std::rc::Rc::{would_unwrap, is_unique}`
- `std::cell::RefCell::borrow_state`

Closes #23755
Closes #27733
Closes #27746
Closes #27784
Closes #28356
Closes #31398
Closes #34931
Closes #35601
Closes #35603
Closes #35918
Closes #36105
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants