8000 MaybeDangling by RalfJung · Pull Request #3336 · rust-lang/rfcs · GitHub
[go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to content

MaybeDangling #3336

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 20 commits into from
May 20, 2024
Merged

MaybeDangling #3336

Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
20 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
f0b49f0
add maybe-dangling RFC
RalfJung Oct 29, 2022
d28f052
fix markdown quirks
RalfJung Oct 31, 2022
baf3d9c
to Deref or not to Deref
RalfJung Oct 31, 2022
c147c8a
rebase the reference diff
RalfJung Oct 31, 2022
982b51d
trait interaction
RalfJung Nov 2, 2022
3c7735a
fix typo
RalfJung Nov 4, 2022
f1064b0
fix typo
RalfJung Nov 6, 2022
53d8d84
clarification
RalfJung Jan 2, 2023
481f2ca
add some real-world examples
RalfJung Jul 19, 2023
f5c12b3
add comparison with some related types
RalfJung Aug 1, 2023
4d23931
attempts at clarification
RalfJung Aug 24, 2023
8f5f5bf
fix syntax error
RalfJung Aug 28, 2023
2077313
add possible alternative: attribute instead of type
RalfJung Sep 12, 2023
572f23b
fix wording
RalfJung Sep 27, 2023
c5a4988
future possibility: attribute / Box magic
RalfJung Sep 29, 2023
64bf786
mention the maybe-dangling crate
RalfJung Dec 7, 2023
d6bfbe7
UnsafeAliased -> UnsafePinned
RalfJung Apr 30, 2024
be7581c
set RFC number
RalfJung May 9, 2024
ee08c28
Cleanup trailing whitespace
traviscross May 20, 2024
d04f509
Prepare RFC 3336 to be merged
traviscross May 20, 2024
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
Prev Previous commit
Next Next commit
mention the maybe-dangling crate
  • Loading branch information
@RalfJung
RalfJung committed Dec 7, 2023
commit 64bf786d281bdbab3e27ec91c1058ea3d0fa3c24
3 changes: 3 additions & 0 deletions text/0000-maybe-dangling.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -247,6 +247,9 @@ The author cannot think of prior art in other languages; the issue arises becaus
Inside Rust, we do have precedent for wrapper types altering language semantics; most prominently, there are `UnsafeCell` and `MaybeUninit`.
Notice that `UnsafeCell` acts "behind references" while `MaybeDangling`, like `MaybeUninit`, acts "around references": `MaybeDangling<&T>` vs `&UnsafeCell<T>`.

There is a [crate](https://docs.rs/maybe-dangling) offering these semantics on stable Rust via `MaybeUninit`.
(This is not "prior" art, it was published after this RFC came out. "Related work" would be more apt. Alas, the RFC template forces this structure on us.)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Extreme pedantry: arguably, "prior" in "prior art" as used by the RFC template means "prior to when this RFC is accepted." The history of past revisions of the RFC document is not part of the final product that gets FCPed and published in the RFC Book. So "prior art" is an accurate description of https://docs.rs/maybe-dangling, and the RFC template is perfectly innocent here.

Copy link
Member Author
@RalfJung RalfJung Dec 8, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

That's not how the term "prior art" is usually used in scientific context. When there is a causal dependency where A caused B, then B cannot be prior art of A, even if the publication of paper A happens after B becomes public. (There is often a significant delay between writing and submitting a paper, and having it published.) Here, as far as I can see, the RFC inspired that crate, so if anything the RFC is prior art for the crate, not vice versa.

Alas, I have several gripes with the strict form of the template, but not the patience to try and fix it.^^

Copy link
Contributor
@Jules-Bertholet Jules-Bertholet Dec 8, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The way I see it, the initial draft of the RFC inspired the crate, which in turn inspired a subsequent draft. But that subsequent draft should be considered a distinct document from the initial draft. Published RFCs, unlike scientific papers, are considered as emanating from the team that approved them, and represent the perspective of that team at the time of FCP approval (the original author is not even listed in the RFC Book).

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I disagree, but it doesn't seem useful to discuss this here.


# Unresolved questions
[unresolved-questions]: #unresolved-questions

Expand Down
0