Stabilize cmp #20065
Merged
Stabilize cmp #20065
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
I believe @aturon is on vacation for the coming week, but I'd like to discuss this in more detail with him, so I'm holding off on the r+ for now. |
| @@ -79,7 +81,7 @@ pub trait PartialEq<Sized? Rhs = Self> for Sized? { | |||
| /// - reflexive: `a == a`; | |||
| /// - symmetric: `a == b` implies `b == a`; and | |||
| /// - transitive: `a == b` and `b == c` implies `a == c`. | |||
| #[unstable = "Definition may change slightly after trait reform"] | |||
| #[stable] | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think we'll need to remove assert_receiver_is_total_eq before marking this stable (but it's close!)
|
@alexcrichton I believe all your comments have now been addressed. |
| @@ -1 +1 @@ | |||
| Subproject commit 3a37981744a5af2433fed551f742465c78c9af7f | |||
| Subproject commit aed73472416064642911af790b25d57c9390b6c7 | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think this was reverted by accident
|
r=me with a minor nit plus a |
This patch marks `PartialEq`, `Eq`, `PartialOrd`, and `Ord` as `#[stable]`, as well as the majorify of manual implementaitons of these traits. The traits match the [reform RFC](rust-lang/rfcs#439). Along the way, two changes are made: * The recently-added type parameters for `Ord` and `Eq` are removed. These were mistakenly added while adding them to `PartialOrd` and `PartialEq`, but they don't make sense given the laws that are required for (and use cases for) `Ord` and `Eq`. * More explicit laws are added for `PartialEq` and `PartialOrd`, connecting them to their associated mathematical concepts. In the future, many of the impls should be generalized; see since generalizing later is not a breaking change. [breaking-change]
| #[unstable = "Definition may change slightly after trait reform"] | ||
| pub trait Eq<Sized? Rhs = Self> for Sized?: PartialEq<Rhs> { | ||
| #[stable] | ||
| pub trait Eq for Sized?: PartialEq<Self> { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We're stabilizing this with assert_receiver_is_total_eq?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Under the assumption that we can remove it before 1.0 final.
alexcrichton
added a commit
to alexcrichton/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 31, 2014
This patch marks `PartialEq`, `Eq`, `PartialOrd`, and `Ord` as `#[stable]`, as well as the majorify of manual implementaitons of these traits. The traits match the [reform RFC](rust-lang/rfcs#439). In the future, many of the impls should be generalized; see rust-lang#20063. However, there is no problem stabilizing the less general impls, since generalizing later is not a breaking change. r? @alexcrichton
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This patch marks
PartialEq,Eq,PartialOrd, andOrdas#[stable], as well as the majorify of manual implementaitons of thesetraits. The traits match the reform RFC.
In the future, many of the impls should be generalized; see #20063.
However, there is no problem stabilizing the less general impls, since
generalizing later is not a breaking change.
r? @alexcrichton