Skip to content

Split the async_await feature gate for the subset we want to stabilize #62214

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
Centril opened this issue Jun 28, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #62292
Closed

Split the async_await feature gate for the subset we want to stabilize #62214

Centril opened this issue Jun 28, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #62292
Assignees
Labels
A-async-await Area: Async & Await AsyncAwait-Polish Async-await issues that are part of the "polish" area T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@Centril
Copy link
Contributor

Centril commented Jun 28, 2019

Move out anything we don't want to stabilize in the report #62149 to a separate feature gate. This includes:

  1. async || ... closures; Move this to async_closures. Tests should also be appropriately split to not mention async_closures in the subset we intend to stabilize.
@Centril Centril added T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. A-async-await Area: Async & Await AsyncAwait-Polish Async-await issues that are part of the "polish" area labels Jun 28, 2019
@Centril Centril assigned cramertj and Centril and unassigned cramertj Jun 28, 2019
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit to Mark-Simulacrum/rust that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit to Mark-Simulacrum/rust that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jul 5, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jul 5, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
A-async-await Area: Async & Await AsyncAwait-Polish Async-await issues that are part of the "polish" area T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants