Clean up condition module #4291
Closed
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
* use Drop trait in Guard
* fix formatting
* remove bare function in Condition.raise_default
* use moved types instead of borrowed pointers in Condition.{raise,trap}
* import common functions
ghost
mentioned this pull request
|
Landed in a933cdf, t hanks! |
ghost
deleted the
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2021
…htriplett Remove `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local` Removes the unstable method `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local`, see also rust-lang#85604 where I have tried to summarize related discussion so far. Unicast site-local addresses (`fec0::/10`) were deprecated in [IETF RFC rust-lang#3879](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3879), see also [RFC rust-lang#4291 Section 2.5.7](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.7). Any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses. This is mentioned in the docs of `is_unicast_site_local` and already implemented in `is_unicast_global`, which considers addresses in `fec0::/10` to have global scope, thus overlapping with `is_unicast_site_local`. Given that RFC rust-lang#3879 was published in 2004, long before Rust existed, and it is specified that any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses, I don't see how a user would ever have a need for `is_unicast_site_local`. It is also confusing that currently both `is_unicast_site_local` and `is_unicast_global` can be `true` for an address, but an address can actually only have a single scope. The deprecating RFC mentions that Site-Local scope was confusing to work with and that the classification of an address as either Link-Local or Global better matches the mental model of users. There has been earlier discussion of removing `is_unicast_site_local` (rust-lang#60145 (comment)) which decided against it, but that had the incorrect assumption that the method was already stable; it is not. (This confusion arose from the placement of the unstable attribute on the entire module, instead of on individual methods, resolved in rust-lang#85672) r? `@joshtriplett` as reviewer of all the related PRs
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 16, 2021
…riplett Remove `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local` Removes the unstable method `Ipv6Addr::is_unicast_site_local`, see also rust-lang#85604 where I have tried to summarize related discussion so far. Unicast site-local addresses (`fec0::/10`) were deprecated in [IETF RFC rust-lang#3879](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc3879), see also [RFC rust-lang#4291 Section 2.5.7](https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4291#section-2.5.7). Any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses. This is mentioned in the docs of `is_unicast_site_local` and already implemented in `is_unicast_global`, which considers addresses in `fec0::/10` to have global scope, thus overlapping with `is_unicast_site_local`. Given that RFC rust-lang#3879 was published in 2004, long before Rust existed, and it is specified that any new implementation must no longer support the special behaviour of site-local addresses, I don't see how a user would ever have a need for `is_unicast_site_local`. It is also confusing that currently both `is_unicast_site_local` and `is_unicast_global` can be `true` for an address, but an address can actually only have a single scope. The deprecating RFC mentions that Site-Local scope was confusing to work with and that the classification of an address as either Link-Local or Global better matches the mental model of users. There has been earlier discussion of removing `is_unicast_site_local` (rust-lang#60145 (comment)) which decided against it, but that had the incorrect assumption that the method was already stable; it is not. (This confusion arose from the placement of the unstable attribute on the entire module, instead of on individual methods, resolved in rust-lang#85672) r? `@joshtriplett` as reviewer of all the related PRs
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.
Droptrait inGuardCondition.raise_defaultCondition.{raise,trap}