-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
Add documentation for Ipv6MulticastScope
#86936
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
Conversation
r? @m-ou-se (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The documentation itself looks good and the reason of #[non_exhaustive]
makes sense to me.
@m-ou-se This has an unstable breaking change, does it need a review from t-libs-api or could I r+ it? |
Changing unstable things is usually fine. If it's a popular API or the change is somewhat controversial, it'd be good to get the team involved. @bors r=JohnTitor |
📌 Commit a674ae6 has been approved by |
Rollup of 13 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#86183 (Change environment variable getters to error recoverably) - rust-lang#86439 (Remove `Ipv4Addr::is_ietf_protocol_assignment`) - rust-lang#86509 (Move `os_str_bytes` to `sys::unix`) - rust-lang#86593 (Partially stabilize `const_slice_first_last`) - rust-lang#86936 (Add documentation for `Ipv6MulticastScope`) - rust-lang#87282 (Ensure `./x.py dist` adheres to `build.tools`) - rust-lang#87468 (Update rustfmt) - rust-lang#87504 (Update mdbook.) - rust-lang#87608 (Remove unused field `Session.system_library_path`) - rust-lang#87629 (Consistent spelling of "adapter" in the standard library) - rust-lang#87633 (Update compiler_builtins to fix i128 shift/mul on thumbv6m) - rust-lang#87644 (Recommend `swap_remove` in `Vec::remove` docs) - rust-lang#87653 (mark a UB doctest as no_run) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Adds basic documentation to the unstable
Ipv6MulticastScope
, as well as marking it#[non_exhaustive]
because future IETF RFCs may introduce additional scopes. The documentation mentions this in a section "Stability Guarantees":