-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
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
Add method Result::into_ok #66045
Add method Result::into_ok #66045
Conversation
r? @sfackler (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Ping from triage: Thanks! |
@rfcbot fcp merge |
Team member @sfackler 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. |
Ping from triage - this PR is still waiting on review: |
I’ve changed the PR description to not close #61695 since that is to become the tracking issue. |
Ping from triage - @sfackler this looks like it's still waiting on a merge |
It is still waiting on one of @Kimundi, @KodrAus, or @withoutboats to complete the FCP process. |
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
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. |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 6f6848f has been approved by |
Add method Result::into_ok Implementation of rust-lang/rfcs#2799 Tracking issue #61695
The job Click to expand the log.
I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
💔 Test failed - checks-azure |
6f6848f
to
b5e7204
Compare
|
@bors retry |
Probably it is too late for changes, but I think feature should be renamed too (e.g. to |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #67485) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
b5e7204
to
6f0672c
Compare
The rebased branch is mergeable and the code currently compiles. Does anything else need to be done to remove S-waiting-on-author? |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 6f0672c has been approved by |
Add method Result::into_ok Implementation of rust-lang/rfcs#2799 Tracking issue rust-lang#61695
Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #66045 (Add method Result::into_ok) - #67258 (Introduce `X..`, `..X`, and `..=X` range patterns) - #68014 (Unify output of "variant not found" errors) - #68019 (Build compiletest with in-tree libtest) - #68039 (remove explicit strip-hidden pass from compiler doc generation) - #68050 (Canonicalize rustc_error imports) - #68059 (Allow specifying LLVM args in target specifications) - #68075 (rustbuild: Cleanup book generation) Failed merges: - #68089 (Unstabilize `Vec::remove_item`) r? @ghost
Add Result::into_err where the Ok variant is the never type Equivalent of rust-lang#66045 but for the inverse situation where `T: Into<!>` rather than `E: Into<!>`. I'm using the same feature gate name. I can't see why one of these methods would be OK to stabilize but not the other. Tracking issue: rust-lang#61695
Implementation of rust-lang/rfcs#2799
Tracking issue #61695