Skip to content

Tracking issue for todo! macro #59277

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

Jump to bottom
Closed
matklad opened this issue Mar 18, 2019 · 11 comments
Closed

Tracking issue for todo! macro #59277

matklad opened this issue Mar 18, 2019 · 11 comments
Labels
A-macros Area: All kinds of macros (custom derive, macro_rules!, proc macros, ..) B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@matklad
Copy link
Member

matklad commented Mar 18, 2019 •
edited
Loading

This is a tracking issue for todo! macro.

Added in #56348. Feature gate: #![feature(todo_macro)].

When stabilizing, we should adjust documentation for unimplemented! to point towards todo!
@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink added B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC labels Mar 18, 2019
@withoutboats withoutboats added A-macros Area: All kinds of macros (custom derive, macro_rules!, proc macros, ..) T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Mar 18, 2019
@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Apr 29, 2019

Anyone wants to FCP for stabilization?

I find this macro so handy I began putting #![feature(todo_macro)] everywhere.

@Centril
Copy link
Contributor

Centril commented May 8, 2019

cc @alexcrichton --^ ?

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Jun 1, 2019

It's been a while -- just a ping in case this slipped through. :)

@matklad
Copy link
Member Author

matklad commented Jun 1, 2019

I guess we should submit stabilization PR and run FCP on that? Note that the PR needs to adjust docs for unimplemented as well. I can send the PR, but not immediately: putting out fires in rust-analyzer :D

@ghost ghost mentioned this issue Jun 15, 2019
Merged
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Oct 3, 2019
@Centril
Rollup merge of rust-lang#61879 - stjepang:stabilize-todo, r=withoutb…
25c6376 
…oats

Stabilize todo macro

The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`.

Tracking issue: rust-lang#59277

This PR needs a FCP to merge.

r? @withoutboats
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Oct 3, 2019
@Centril
Rollup merge of rust-lang#61879 - stjepang:stabilize-todo, r=withoutb…
cc835db 
…oats

Stabilize todo macro

The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`.

Tracking issue: rust-lang#59277

This PR needs a FCP to merge.

r? @withoutboats
tmandry added a commit to tmandry/rust that referenced this issue Oct 3, 2019
@tmandry
Rollup merge of rust-lang#61879 - stjepang:stabilize-todo, r=withoutb…
2d5f4df 
…oats

Stabilize todo macro

The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`.

Tracking issue: rust-lang#59277

This PR needs a FCP to merge.

r? @withoutboats
tmandry added a commit to tmandry/rust that referenced this issue Oct 3, 2019
@tmandry
Rollup merge of rust-lang#61879 - stjepang:stabilize-todo, r=withoutb…
f7ee31e 
…oats

Stabilize todo macro

The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`.

Tracking issue: rust-lang#59277

This PR needs a FCP to merge.

r? @withoutboats
@SimonSapin
Copy link
Contributor

I don’t have a strong opinion on this one, but since it landed and there doesn’t seem to be significant issues discussed since:

@rfcbot fcp merge

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Oct 18, 2019 •
edited by alexcrichton
Loading

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

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), 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 rfcbot added proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. labels Oct 18, 2019
@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Oct 21, 2019

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

@rfcbot rfcbot added final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. labels Oct 21, 2019
@rfcbot rfcbot added the finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. label Oct 31, 2019
@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Oct 31, 2019

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

The RFC will be merged soon.

@rfcbot rfcbot removed the final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. label Oct 31, 2019
@FlyingCanoe
Copy link

why is this not stable wet?

@matklad
Copy link
Member Author

matklad commented Dec 9, 2019

@FlyingCanoe it will be stable with Rust 1.40: https://github.com/XAMPPRocky/rust/blob/relnotes-1.40.0/RELEASES.md#stabilized-apis

@SimonSapin
Copy link
Contributor

The stabilization PR #61879 should have closed this issue. In fact it even landed before FCP in this thread was started…

@60ke 60ke mentioned this issue Dec 23, 2019
Closed
@shixiongjing shixiongjing mentioned this issue Jan 28, 2020
Closed
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
A-macros Area: All kinds of macros (custom derive, macro_rules!, proc macros, ..) B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. C-tracking-issue Category: An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
7 participants
@SimonSapin @Centril @matklad @jonas-schievink @withoutboats @rfcbot @FlyingCanoe