-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.1k
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
Name resolution has changed between 1.7.0 and 1.8.0 #33458
Comments
cc @jseyfried @nrc FWIW I think 62 makes more sense, intuitively speaking, but the subtle change is a bit terrifying |
Nominating for T-lang discussion. |
This was intentional, see #31105. |
This likely means that the change wasn’t communicated well enough? |
Yes, for future reference, anything marked |
We discussed this in the @rust-lang/lang meeting. The conclusion was that the change was legit (a bug fix), but there was a process failure in that we failed to tag the breaking change with "relnotes". D'oh, but I think this change had only very minor impact in practice? |
I also think so. I sometimes stumble upon such dark corners of the language, but it is only because we try to reimplement compiler fronted in IntelliJ Rust. We probably should close the issue, thanks for the clarification! |
I agree that this change had very minor impact in practice -- constants and local variables can only have the same name by violating naming conventions, and We have landed other [breaking-change] bug fixes with similarly low likelihoods of breakage (#32923, #32134, #32006, #31908, #31824, #30866, #30295, #30294, #32141, #31461) -- should these all have been tagged |
I think yes, they should be in the release notes. The release notes might help someone figuring out what's going on when they see some code breaking (maybe a breaking change had unintended/unforeseen consequences) |
I think this is the intended behavior and the issue should be closed. |
The following program:
prints
92
with rustc 1.7.0 and62
with rustc 1.8.0. Is this intentional? I have not found a mention in the release notes. Also the reference could be a bit more clear on the scoping rules :)The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: