Document all features

[rust-lang]

Document all features

[alercah]

I removed all the unstable RFCs from the Needs Review column, since they'll get docs as part of their work. A few I moved into the Awaiting column, and a few I closed as unrelated since they were obviously e.g. library-only PRs.

[mattico]

Also needs documenting: #[cfg(target_feature = "")]. I'll get around to it if I don't forget.

[mrhota]

Would it be useful to have a link in the nightly lang reference to this issue?

[Eh2406]

Note for anyone viewing this page there is a long list of RFC that still need the documentation status evaluated. I am happy to merge changes from forks of the gist.

[chriskrycho]

Update to above comment, @mattico: target_feature will be covered in #1199!

[chriskrycho]

Absolutely! I'll add that later this afternoon.

[ekse]

#41 has been merged (thanks @steveklabnik), you can tick "#558: require parentheses for chained comparisons – the requirement is not documented in the reference".

[sanmai-NL]

rust-lang/rfcs#1869 can be ticked off as well.

[mrhota]

@chriskrycho OK, you can check off C.2 UFCS discussion: see #45

[chriskrycho]

Thanks @brson @mrhota @dhardy @sanmai-NL!

My vacation was far more productive than I planned in non-Rust categories, in that we bought a house; but accordingly less productive here. Current goal is to spend at least one hour every week working on this going forward. Here's hoping. 😉

[chordowl]

Looks like the tracking list hasn't been updated in a while, it's missing the following RFCs:

• 1414-rvalue_static_promotion.md
• 1558-closure-to-fn-coercion.md
• 1584-macros.md
• 1647-allow-self-in-where-clauses.md
• 1651-movecell.md
• 1685-deprecate-anonymous-parameters.md
• 1695-add-error-macro.md
• 1733-trait-alias.md
• 1758-repr-transparent.md
• 1789-as-cell.md
• 1824-crates.io-default-ranking.md
• 1849-non-static-type-id.md
• 1857-stabilize-drop-order.md
• 1859-try-trait.md
• 1861-extern-types.md
• 1866-more-readable-assert-eq.md
• 1868-portability-lint.md
• 1937-ques-in-main.md
• 1940-must-use-functions.md
• 1946-intra-rustdoc-links.md
• 1951-expand-impl-trait.md
• 1969-cargo-prepublish.md
• 1974-global-allocators.md
• 1985-tiered-browser-support.md
• 2005-match-ergonomics.md
• 2027-object_safe_for_dispatch.md
• 2033-experimental-coroutines.md
• 2044-license-rfcs.md
• 2057-refcell-replace.md

[mrhota]

ok, @chriskrycho, I'm updating your gist in my fork here. Hopefully it'll be easy to incorporate the updates into your copy. I'm also incorporating changes from other forks of your gist, so you'll just be able to copy over changes from mine.

[chriskrycho]

Sorry it took me so long to respond, @mattico—thanks for the note! I'll flag it as something to do when adding the other similar configurable compilation bits with e.g. #0131.

[steveklabnik]

@mrhota that's a great idea!

[chriskrycho]

Even simpler, let's have interested people fork my new copy of the original (for which a thousand thanks, @Eh2406!) and I can more easily merge them and track them myself!

[sunjay]

Could you add something in the description for those of us who want to help but don't know what you want us to do? Right now all I see is a big list of stuff but I'm not sure what you want us to help with and how exactly you want us to go about it. This is a very monolithic issue and it's hard to know what to do if you haven't helped with this kind of thing before.

[chriskrycho]

Note: This is integrated into the body of the issue as well; just adding it here so everyone who's watching the issue sees it via notification!

"How Can I Help?"

For right now, since you can't submit updates to the issue directly, there are two major ways you can help:

1. Write documentation. For the RFCs already triaged and filed under the major section C. Documentation Needed and specifically the subsection 2. Write reference material for undocumented, implemented, stabilized RFC features below, you can open a pull request and reference this issue in its description. I'll keep an eye out for inbound links here and add those links to the relevant items, and once they're merged, we'll mark that item as done.

2. Triage issues. Work the gist where I'm tracking the triaged-state, specifically looking at the Not Reviewed at All and Stabilized, Not Reviewed sections and evaluating whether they're documented or not. You can fork the gist and I will keep an eye out, checking roughly daily, for any changes to merge back into that document. (Do take a look at what others may have forked it so you don't duplicate work needlessly!) I'll then pull those over into this master issue.

   When working through those, if you determine that they're already documented, please leave a note (and link!) on your copy of the gist as to where so I can link it in this document. That dramatically decreases the time it takes me to confirm it—I double-check all of these.

[mrhota]

@chriskrycho You can tick C.1 (or convert all the sub-bullets to boxes and tick them all!). See #35.

[ekse]

@chriskrycho I opened a pull request for #558.

#41

[chriskrycho]

@mrhota outstanding! I'll make that tweak in a bit. (There will be more to add, but it's an awesome start!)

@ekse 💥

[matthewjasper]

@chriskrycho I think that I've got all of the simple RFCs done in the gist now, and have categories and links for just about everything else to help anyone wanting to check the more complicated RFCs more carefully.

[chriskrycho]

Excellent! I'll have a nice block of time off and will review those quickly and hit some of the more complicated ones starting next week!

[dhardy]

#1624 loop_break_value is done

[mrhota]

@chriskrycho another one! merged #44, so you can check off C.2 integer overflow. Also, remember to check off C.2 Unambiguous function call syntax since we resolved that with #45

[brson]

I checked off integer overflow, ufcs, loop/break, and windows subsystem.

[chriskrycho]

Thank you very much @lukaramu!

And status update for everyone else: I ended up in a surprising spot as maintainer of ember-cli-typescript and that ate my summer. I'm close to getting that stable and coming back to this.

[alercah]

I'm confused both as to what the statuses are (what do stabilized and reviewed mean?) and where the current work is.

[chriskrycho]

Totally fair! Stabilized means the RFC feature has been merged to stable Rust. Reviewed means I or someone else had looked over the documentation and confirmed whether an RFC feature is documented or not. Status is basically the above comments and the Gists linked in them. I am actually planning on taking some time on Jan. 1 to write up some comments on all of this and expect to knock out the rest of the review triage in the next month or so, which should make it way easier for people to just document those currently-undocumented RFC features.

[alercah]

Any progress? I'd like to start trying to submit PRs for easier RFCs.

[chriskrycho]

No, and sorry for the delay. I will pick this work up Tuesday afternoon!

[alercah]

Is there anything I can do to help you out at this point?

[chriskrycho]

Can you unpack my house? 😜 I’ll be at it in the next week or so. Apologies for the several delays. It’s one of my main goals for Rust stuff I do this year, so I will get to it. Holidays plus moving plus cancer in the extended family has made for an especially busy crunch.

[alercah]

Unfortunately I'm on the wrong continent at the moment!

I'm sorry to hear about your family, I hope things go well. I look forward to getting things sorted. When you do, would it perhaps make sense to file a bug for each RFC?

[Eh2406]

People can at any time fined a RFC that is not documented and make a pr to improve the documentation. That is not dependent on this organisation getting updated.

[mrhota]

@alercah just a thought: could you provide a snapshot or summary of where this issue currently is, accounting for all comments and stuff? That would probably take some pressure off @chriskrycho since he could then just copy your snapshot/summary into the OP when he gets a free moment.

Come to think of it, if you want to work on it together, I'm going to get on IRC in the #rust-docs channel. I recently wanted to summarize this issue myself, and I'm feeling inspired now.

[chriskrycho]

Excellent!

[alercah]

I've added a new project to help track things more easily, and am moving data from @mrhota's Gist over to it. Proposed instructions to use are in #220.

[alercah]

I've now put all the "needs review" RFCs in, except for ones which I poked at and they completely obviously didn't (either not stable or not related to the language).

[chriskrycho]

Thank you *very* much!

[chriskrycho]

GitHub needs a "You're my hero!" response-moji.

[alercah]

I've gone through and added all the ones marked as needing documentation, up to but not including the "Macros" section on the Gist. Only a few left.

[alercah]

I've opened a bigger issue for macros, and linked the relevant RFCs, since macro documentation is sorely lacking. The remaining ones in "It's complicated..." are either library-only or documented to the extent that they need to be in the reference, so no need to do further work. I would say the Gist is now fully ported into the issue tracker & project page. I propose closing this issue.

[chriskrycho]

👏 Thank you so much for picking up where I left off, not least b/c I never got back to it. 😭 I'm in favor of closing if everyone else working on this is satisfied that it is indeed full ported into the issue tracker!

[steveklabnik]

This is awesome! I agree, looks like you've gotten everything. Let's close.