Conversation
|
Thanks for the PR. If you have write access, feel free to merge this PR if it does not need reviews. You can request a review using |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? rustc-dev-guide |
|
In my opinion, it would be meaningless to just change the date without changing the content. If there is a change in the content, please update the date then |
| ## Choices are always lifetime parameters | ||
|
|
||
| At present, the "choice" regions from a member constraint are always lifetime | ||
| parameters from the current function. As of <!-- date-check --> October 2021, | ||
| parameters from the current function. As of <!-- date-check --> March 2026, | ||
| this falls out from the placement of impl Trait, though in the future it may not | ||
| be the case. We take some advantage of this fact, as it simplifies the current | ||
| code. In particular, we don't have to consider a case like `'0 member of ['1, | ||
| 'static]`, in which the value of both `'0` and `'1` are being inferred and hence | ||
| changing. See [rust-lang/rust#61773][#61773] for more information. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@BoxyUwU do you happen to know if this is still true?
| As of <!-- date-check --> Aug 2022, | ||
| As of <!-- date-check --> March 2026, | ||
| we lint against direct declarations without the use of the macro. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
have you verified this is still true?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@jyn514 (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/main/compiler/rustc_lint/src/lib.rs)
i checked the above lib.rs looks like we are still using LINT_PASS_IMPL_WITHOUT_MACRO so i guess this is still true because this will act as global identifier. Any thoughts ?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
cool. since there's no dates involved in the code, I think we should remove the date and just start the sentence with "We lint against ...". This is not changing so rapidly that we need to regularly check on it.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
got it, i was thinking the same if its not statically changing we should just remove it. Other changes looks good ?
@reddevilmidzy this isn't how date-check works, see https://rustc-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/contributing.html#contributing-to-rustc-dev-guide |
jyn514
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@jyn514 thanks for the feedback, i ll fix it :) |
|
@jyn514 i have added the llvm 21 and 22 links |
|
@Ko496-glitch thanks for the PR :) |
|
5 participants
Updated 'date-checlk: ' dates in following documents
Signed off by: ko496