Skip to content
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

Stabilize option_insert. #84088

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 15, 2021
Merged

Conversation

m-ou-se
Copy link
Member

@m-ou-se m-ou-se commented Apr 11, 2021

FCP finished here: #78271 (comment)

@m-ou-se m-ou-se added the T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Apr 11, 2021
@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @joshtriplett

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Apr 11, 2021
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@m-ou-se m-ou-se force-pushed the stabilize-option-insert branch from c3f5711 to dc373a6 Compare April 11, 2021 09:59
@rust-log-analyzer

This comment has been minimized.

@m-ou-se m-ou-se force-pushed the stabilize-option-insert branch from dc373a6 to a931060 Compare April 11, 2021 10:22
@jonas-schievink jonas-schievink added the relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. label Apr 11, 2021
@et342
Copy link
Contributor

et342 commented Apr 14, 2021

Should this be called get_replace?

Say, if we have a box and if we put a thing into it, then what we get is a box filled with the thing, and not the thing itself. But, we do get the thing here, so prefix get_ seems appropriate. But, get_insert does not seems appropriate, because if box is filled − then we cannot insert, we can only replace and replacement is what is what's happening here, so get_replace.

Moved to tracking issue

@m-ou-se
Copy link
Member Author

m-ou-se commented Apr 14, 2021

@et342 Comments on the stabilization PR tend to not get a lot of attention. If you want to discuss the feature, it's better to comment on the tracking issue.

@et342
Copy link
Contributor

et342 commented Apr 14, 2021

@m-ou-se Ah, ok. Thank you. Thought since it says comment period is over on the tracking issue, concern should be directed here.

@m-ou-se
Copy link
Member Author

m-ou-se commented Apr 15, 2021

(see #78271 (comment))

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 15, 2021

📌 Commit a931060 has been approved by m-ou-se

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Apr 15, 2021
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 15, 2021

⌛ Testing commit a931060 with merge f1ca558...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Apr 15, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: m-ou-se
Pushing f1ca558 to master...

@bors bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label Apr 15, 2021
@bors bors merged commit f1ca558 into rust-lang:master Apr 15, 2021
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.53.0 milestone Apr 15, 2021
@m-ou-se m-ou-se deleted the stabilize-option-insert branch April 16, 2021 10:06
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. relnotes Marks issues that should be documented in the release notes of the next release. S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants