Stabilize todo macro #61879

ghost · 2019-06-15T23:26:29Z

The todo! macro is just another name for unimplemented!.

Tracking issue: #59277

This PR needs a FCP to merge.

r? @withoutboats

Centril · 2019-06-23T11:51:01Z

r? @dtolnay

withoutboats · 2019-06-27T13:12:48Z

@rfcbot fcp merge

Like Stjepan, I've been using todo, which is so much more pleasant than unimplemented (and even than panic). I like having this alias in std, and I want to be able to use it without turning on a feature flag.

rfcbot · 2019-06-27T13:16:06Z

Team member @withoutboats has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

Concerns:

~~plan-for-unimplemented~~ resolved by Stabilize todo macro #61879 (comment)

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.

alexcrichton · 2019-07-01T20:13:30Z

@rfcbot concern plan-for-unimplemented

Is there a plan for what to do with unimplemented!? Is the intended long-term effect that we have both macros, or is the intended long-term goal that we deprecate unimplemented! in favor of todo!?

ghost · 2019-07-02T09:30:11Z

@alexcrichton Some thoughts on that by @withoutboats:

#56348 (comment)
#56348 (comment)

The short answer is that we keep unimplemented! and don't really make a distinction from todo!. Which of these two macros you use is a matter of personal taste.

withoutboats · 2019-07-02T14:30:34Z

Is there a plan for what to do with unimplemented!? Is the intended long-term effect that we have both macros, or is the intended long-term goal that we deprecate unimplemented! in favor of todo!?

I don't think its worthwhile to deprecate unimplemented. Many people already use just panic for this purpose (including you I believe, from a conversation a long time ago). Having more than one way to do this causes no problems. We really don't need to dictate to people how they write their "panic because i didnt write this code yet" code.

alexcrichton · 2019-07-02T15:51:19Z

Ok, thanks for the clarification! I'm not a huge fan of having multiple ways to do things like this, but this is basically just a convenience and conversions also are a matter of taste with libstd, so it seems reasonable enough to me.

@rfcbot resolve plan-for-unimplemented

rfcbot · 2019-07-02T15:53:59Z

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

JohnBSmith · 2019-07-03T21:54:56Z

I think it makes sense that the two macros could have slightly different meanings, in that todo!() would indicate work in progress, but unimplemented!() would indicate something omitted intentionally.

For example, if in a textbook some detail of an algorithm does not matter for the current consideration, an unimplemented!() could be placed rather than todo!().

smmalis37 · 2019-07-04T00:28:48Z

Similar to @alexcrichton I'm not a fan of multiple ways to do something simple like this. Is there really a need for this over something like unimplemented!("TODO: Write this.") vs unimplemented!("Omitted for this example.")?

I feel like having both of these makes it harder for people to track all instances of these macros for not much gain in expressiveness as they now have to know that there's two possibilities, not just one.

ghost · 2019-07-04T09:12:26Z

@smmalis37

Well, I like prototyping Rust code by defining functions without implementing their bodies, leaving unimplemented!() in their place. But the thing is, if I'm writing code for myself, I tend to use panic!() instead because it's just so much easier to type than the other macro. In fact, it feels almost as if Rust is discouraging me from prototyping code.

Yes, this can be solved by external crates but I'm not going to add a dependency just for a single shorter macro. And yes, it might be solved by text editor's help but that isn't a solution everywhere (think Rust Playground).

So the bottom line is that I'm a human and having the todo!() macro would make me a happier Rust programmer. I feel the drawback of having multiple ways of doing the same thing is a small price to pay for that, but also understand others feel differently. shrug

petrochenkov · 2019-07-04T09:20:02Z

Duplication like this makes people learning the library go through the next process

Should I use unimplemented or todo?
Google -> reading top relevant Stack Overflow question "unimplemented vs todo"
Top answer: they are exactly the same
Questions in comments - "but why???", another answer contains detailed archeology with links to this thread and other threads.
(Some percent of especially enthusiastic users goes back to the issue tracker or user forum to report that the library is a mess.)

Is this ok? I don't know, probably not a big deal, but I can't say I like it too much.

petrochenkov · 2019-07-04T09:30:26Z

On a related note, we really need lints with arguments enabling targeted deprecation (like #![allow(deprecated(unimplemented))]) to be able to deprecate things like unimplemented!().

bors · 2019-10-03T20:15:16Z

⌛ Testing commit 711f673 with merge b514517937b4ae6e9c9cecf5a791b3788589ff30...

Centril · 2019-10-03T20:16:49Z

@bors retry rolled up.

bors · 2019-10-03T21:01:27Z

⌛ Testing commit 711f673 with merge c04eac9f5397e3e81b2645fe06f1c6d80b544303...

@withoutboats

…oats Stabilize todo macro The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`. Tracking issue: rust-lang#59277 This PR needs a FCP to merge. r? @withoutboats

Centril · 2019-10-03T21:04:59Z

@bors retry rolled up.

bors · 2019-10-03T22:45:29Z

⌛ Testing commit 711f673 with merge 83c354a1446702165e566173a8ace58c44d73be6...

@withoutboats

…oats Stabilize todo macro The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`. Tracking issue: rust-lang#59277 This PR needs a FCP to merge. r? @withoutboats

tmandry · 2019-10-03T23:11:33Z

@bors retry rolled up

bors · 2019-10-03T23:21:00Z

⌛ Testing commit 711f673 with merge 8d67d343c62f4c83506dc81fd34e8107fac0b049...

@withoutboats

…oats Stabilize todo macro The `todo!` macro is just another name for `unimplemented!`. Tracking issue: rust-lang#59277 This PR needs a FCP to merge. r? @withoutboats

tmandry · 2019-10-03T23:26:44Z

@bors retry, rolled up again!

tmandry · 2019-10-03T23:29:43Z

@bors retry

@ghost

Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #61879 (Stabilize todo macro) - #64675 (Deprecate `#![plugin]` & `#[plugin_registrar]`) - #64690 (proc_macro API: Expose `macro_rules` hygiene) - #64706 (add regression test for #60218) - #64741 (Prevent rustdoc feature doctests) - #64842 (Disallow Self in type param defaults of ADTs) - #65004 (Replace mentions of IRC with Discord) - #65018 (Set RUST_BACKTRACE=0 in tests that include a backtrace in stderr) - #65055 (Add long error explanation for E0556) - #65056 (Make visit projection iterative) - #65057 (typo: fix typo in E0392) Failed merges: r? @ghost

bors · 2019-10-04T03:35:36Z

⌛ Testing commit 711f673 with merge 31d75c4...

SimonSapin · 2019-12-09T22:40:31Z

In any future stabilization PR, please remember to make it close the corresponding tracking issue. Thanks!

Stabilize todo macro

8e3b9d2

rust-highfive assigned withoutboats Jun 15, 2019

rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jun 15, 2019

Centril added relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. needs-fcp This change is insta-stable, so needs a completed FCP to proceed. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Jun 15, 2019

Centril added this to the 1.37 milestone Jun 15, 2019

rust-highfive assigned dtolnay and unassigned withoutboats Jun 23, 2019

ghost approved these changes Jun 27, 2019

View reviewed changes

rfcbot added proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. labels Jun 27, 2019

Centril removed the needs-fcp This change is insta-stable, so needs a completed FCP to proceed. label Jun 30, 2019

rfcbot added final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. and removed proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. labels Jul 2, 2019

Centril modified the milestones: 1.37, 1.38 Jul 2, 2019

Centril mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2019

Rollup of 10 pull requests #65070

Closed

Centril removed the I-needs-decision Issue: In need of a decision. label Oct 3, 2019

Centril mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2019

Rollup of 11 pull requests #65072

Closed

tmandry mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2019

Rollup of 12 pull requests #65075

Closed

tmandry mentioned this pull request Oct 3, 2019

Rollup of 11 pull requests #65076

Merged

bors merged commit 711f673 into rust-lang:master Oct 4, 2019

Centril mentioned this pull request Nov 13, 2019

Update RELEASES.md for 1.40.0 #66377

Merged

SimonSapin mentioned this pull request Dec 9, 2019

Tracking issue for todo! macro #59277

Closed

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Stabilize todo macro #61879

Stabilize todo macro #61879

ghost commented Jun 15, 2019

Centril commented Jun 23, 2019

withoutboats commented Jun 27, 2019

rfcbot commented Jun 27, 2019 •

edited by alexcrichton

Loading

alexcrichton commented Jul 1, 2019

ghost commented Jul 2, 2019 •

edited by ghost

Loading

withoutboats commented Jul 2, 2019 •

edited

Loading

alexcrichton commented Jul 2, 2019

rfcbot commented Jul 2, 2019

JohnBSmith commented Jul 3, 2019

smmalis37 commented Jul 4, 2019

ghost commented Jul 4, 2019

petrochenkov commented Jul 4, 2019 •

edited

Loading

petrochenkov commented Jul 4, 2019 •

edited

Loading

bors commented Oct 3, 2019

Centril commented Oct 3, 2019

bors commented Oct 3, 2019

Centril commented Oct 3, 2019

bors commented Oct 3, 2019

tmandry commented Oct 3, 2019

bors commented Oct 3, 2019

tmandry commented Oct 3, 2019

tmandry commented Oct 3, 2019

bors commented Oct 4, 2019

SimonSapin commented Dec 9, 2019

Stabilize todo macro #61879

Stabilize todo macro #61879

Conversation

ghost commented Jun 15, 2019

Centril commented Jun 23, 2019

withoutboats commented Jun 27, 2019

rfcbot commented Jun 27, 2019 • edited by alexcrichton Loading

alexcrichton commented Jul 1, 2019

ghost commented Jul 2, 2019 • edited by ghost Loading

withoutboats commented Jul 2, 2019 • edited Loading

alexcrichton commented Jul 2, 2019

rfcbot commented Jul 2, 2019

JohnBSmith commented Jul 3, 2019

smmalis37 commented Jul 4, 2019

ghost commented Jul 4, 2019

petrochenkov commented Jul 4, 2019 • edited Loading

petrochenkov commented Jul 4, 2019 • edited Loading

bors commented Oct 3, 2019

Centril commented Oct 3, 2019

bors commented Oct 3, 2019

Centril commented Oct 3, 2019

bors commented Oct 3, 2019

tmandry commented Oct 3, 2019

bors commented Oct 3, 2019

tmandry commented Oct 3, 2019

tmandry commented Oct 3, 2019

bors commented Oct 4, 2019

SimonSapin commented Dec 9, 2019

rfcbot commented Jun 27, 2019 •

edited by alexcrichton

Loading

ghost commented Jul 2, 2019 •

edited by ghost

Loading

withoutboats commented Jul 2, 2019 •

edited

Loading

petrochenkov commented Jul 4, 2019 •

edited

Loading

petrochenkov commented Jul 4, 2019 •

edited

Loading