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

Split the async_await feature gate for the subset we want to stabilize #62214

Closed
Centril opened this issue Jun 28, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #62292
Closed

Split the async_await feature gate for the subset we want to stabilize #62214

Centril opened this issue Jun 28, 2019 · 0 comments · Fixed by #62292
Assignees
Labels
A-async-await Area: Async & Await AsyncAwait-Polish Async-await issues that are part of the "polish" area T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@Centril
Copy link
Contributor

Centril commented Jun 28, 2019

Move out anything we don't want to stabilize in the report #62149 to a separate feature gate. This includes:

  1. async || ... closures; Move this to async_closures. Tests should also be appropriately split to not mention async_closures in the subset we intend to stabilize.
@Centril Centril added T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. A-async-await Area: Async & Await AsyncAwait-Polish Async-await issues that are part of the "polish" area labels Jun 28, 2019
@Centril Centril assigned cramertj and Centril and unassigned cramertj Jun 28, 2019
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit to Mark-Simulacrum/rust that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Mark-Simulacrum added a commit to Mark-Simulacrum/rust that referenced this issue Jul 4, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jul 5, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jul 5, 2019
…mertj

Move `async || ...` closures into `#![feature(async_closure)]`

The `async || expr` syntax is moved out from `#![feature(async_await)]` into its own gate `#![feature(async_closure)]`.

New tracking issue: rust-lang#62290

Closes rust-lang#62214.

cc rust-lang#62149

r? @varkor
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-async-await Area: Async & Await AsyncAwait-Polish Async-await issues that are part of the "polish" area T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

2 participants