-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 286
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Announcing Rust 1.82.0 #1415
Announcing Rust 1.82.0 #1415
Conversation
Co-authored-by: Kevin Reid <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kevin Reid <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kevin Reid <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Kevin Reid <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Travis Cross <[email protected]>
I believe rust-lang/rust#129577 is missing from the release blog post. I think it's a quite important new feature and deserves being mentioned, if at least briefly. That tracking issue currently lang-nominated, but I assume T-lang may not have the time to draft relnotes sections given a deadline. I'm happy to help write something, though I'm very much not a good writer. Perhaps we could lift some verbiage from https://blog.rust-lang.org/2024/09/05/impl-trait-capture-rules.html#impl-traits-can-include-a-use-bound-to-specify-precisely-which-generic-types-and-lifetimes-they-use. Also, process-wise, is there something we can do to ensure that things like this don't slip through the cracks? |
@compiler-errors precise capturing is listed in the release notes, and it was on our candidate list for the blog, but I dropped it because I wasn't sure what to say about it -- and we already have a lot more content than usual. It does have a place in the RPIT captures blog post, as far as it pertains to 2024. For stable editions now, does it actually enable anything new though? AIUI you currently have to write all type parameters, and writing lifetime parameters like Process-wise, that's been lang-nominated since August 25th, so it was not a short deadline. Perhaps the team could further prioritize those that are also labeled for relnotes? |
Well, so |
Hmm, OK, I think that earlier section on outlives has the extra nuance I was missing -- why the current syntax is insufficient. |
Yep. In general, I expect some growing pains from other teams learning how to deal with the new set of timely nominations :D |
…acrum Remove `Waker::waker` from 1.82 relnotes This was noticed in <rust-lang/blog.rust-lang.org#1415 (review)>.
@traviscross in theory, everything we mention in the blog is meant to be "fairly large user-facing," with the remainder left to the release notes alone. Items in the API list may be debatable on largeness, but we just dump that whole. Is there any part we included that perhaps you think is not blog worthy? |
The item about safe raw slices to statics could probably be dropped. It's essentially a bug fix. All the other lang items there seem important to mention, in the sense that if they weren't there and someone later came back and said, "hey, how could you change that in Rust and not even bother to mention it in the release blog post?", that we'd feel they were right. Lots of things came together for Rust 1.82. It's going to be an unusually substantial release. Here's how I'd order the relative announcement importance of the lang items, starting at most important to highlight:
|
Co-authored-by: Travis Cross <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Travis Cross <[email protected]>
I think since there's so much lang content, we should sandwich it to avoid overshadowing non-lang.
|
Co-authored-by: Travis Cross <[email protected]>
…acrum Remove `Waker::waker` from 1.82 relnotes This was noticed in <rust-lang/blog.rust-lang.org#1415 (review)>.
Co-authored-by: Ralf Jung <[email protected]>
Thanks to CE for details on the compiler's use-case that informs an example here.
Since we're adding `unsafe extern` in this release, saying "safe items with unsafe extern" rather than "safe items in unsafe extern" here sounds more right to my ear.
We can have static items as well as function items within an `extern` block, so let's say "use" rather than "call" when referring to these. Let's also give an example of a static item to show how `safe` allows for safe access to these items.
It's more correct to say "were" rather than "was" here, and it sounds better to my ear.
There were some long and grammatically involved sentences that it makes sense to refactor a bit here for better readability.
cc @rust-lang/release
r? @Mark-Simulacrum
Rendered