Skip to content

Stabilize Once::is_completed #68945

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 20, 2020
Merged

Conversation

mjbshaw
Copy link
Contributor

@mjbshaw mjbshaw commented Feb 8, 2020

Closes #54890

This function has been around for some time. I haven't seen anyone raise any objections to it. I've personally found it useful myself. It would be nice to finally stabilize it and

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Contributor

r? @LukasKalbertodt

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Feb 8, 2020
Copy link
Member

@LukasKalbertodt LukasKalbertodt left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes look good to me.

@rfcbot fcp merge (@rust-lang/libs can someone do this for me? I am not allowed to)


What is stabilized here? std::sync::Once::is_completed:

pub fn is_completed(&self) -> bool

Implemented 1.5 years ago. The tracking issue did not bring up any concerns, so I think this is a pretty straight forward addition and I don't see why it shouldn't be stabilized.

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

The PR originally implementing this also mentioned that doing anything meaningful when the method returns false is likely wrong; do we want to add that to the docs prior to stabilization?

@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink added relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Feb 8, 2020
@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink added this to the 1.43 milestone Feb 8, 2020
@mjbshaw
Copy link
Contributor Author

mjbshaw commented Feb 8, 2020

@Mark-Simulacrum I incorporated @nagisa's wording in an attempt to make that clearer. I'm hoping the updated verbiage is sufficient. I'm reluctant to explicitly say "don't do anything meaningful if this returns false" because I think that can be easily misunderstood to mean that the else branch in if once.is_completed() { ... } else { ... } is bad, when in reality it can be perfectly reasonable (i.e., 1, 2).

@Mark-Simulacrum
Copy link
Member

Yes that seems better.

@Amanieu
Copy link
Member

Amanieu commented Feb 9, 2020

@rfcbot fcp merge

@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Feb 9, 2020

Team member @Amanieu 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 Feb 9, 2020
@LukasKalbertodt

This comment has been minimized.

@mjbshaw

This comment has been minimized.

@LukasKalbertodt

This comment has been minimized.

@rfcbot rfcbot added the final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. label Feb 9, 2020
@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Feb 9, 2020

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

@rfcbot rfcbot removed the proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. label Feb 9, 2020
@rfcbot rfcbot added finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. and removed final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. labels Feb 19, 2020
@rfcbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rfcbot commented Feb 19, 2020

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.

@LukasKalbertodt
Copy link
Member

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Feb 20, 2020

📌 Commit 348278a has been approved by LukasKalbertodt

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Feb 20, 2020
Dylan-DPC-zz pushed a commit to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2020
…albertodt

Stabilize Once::is_completed

Closes rust-lang#54890

This function has been around for some time. I haven't seen anyone raise any objections to it. I've personally found it useful myself. It would be nice to finally stabilize it and
bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 20, 2020
Rollup of 5 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - #68705 (Add LinkedList::remove())
 - #68945 (Stabilize Once::is_completed)
 - #68978 (Make integer exponentiation methods unstably const)
 - #69266 (Fix race condition when allocating source files in SourceMap)
 - #69287 (Clean up E0317 explanation)

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@bors bors merged commit 588f008 into rust-lang:master Feb 20, 2020
@jplatte
Copy link
Contributor

jplatte commented Mar 12, 2020

This PR has the GitHub milestone 1.43 but the stabilization attribute says 1.44.0. Which one is correct?

Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this pull request Mar 15, 2020
…e-since, r=Centril

Fix "since" field for `Once::is_complete`'s `#[stable]` attribute

It was accidentally merged with the wrong version in rust-lang#68945.  Thanks @jplatte for noticing.

This also needs to be beta backported.
# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
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. relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Tracking issue for std::sync::Once::is_completed
9 participants