Skip to content

Commit 1dea0f2

Browse files
authored
Merge pull request #659 from nikomatsakis/2020-07-29-lang-team-design-meetings
add two blog posts around recent lang team design meetings
2 parents 9808ebd + 2d677de commit 1dea0f2

File tree

2 files changed

+87
-0
lines changed

2 files changed

+87
-0
lines changed
Lines changed: 32 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,32 @@
1+
---
2+
layout: post
3+
title: "Lang team design meeting: minimal const generics"
4+
author: Niko Matsakis
5+
description: "Minimal const generics meeting report"
6+
team: the lang team <https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/lang>
7+
---
8+
9+
Hello! Did you know that the [lang team] now has regular design
10+
meetings? We use these meetings to dig deeper into the output of
11+
active project groups. After the meeting, we typically post a
12+
recording to [YouTube] as well as some [minutes into the lang-team
13+
repository][min]. I wanted to write a quick update listing out some of
14+
the meetings we've had recently as well as some of our upcoming
15+
meetings.
16+
17+
[YouTube]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL85XCvVPmGQg-gYy7R6a_Y91oQLdsbSpa
18+
[lang team]: https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/lang
19+
[min]: https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/tree/master/design-meeting-minutes
20+
21+
This blog post is about the meeting we held on 2020-07-22. We
22+
discussed the idea of creating a "minimal const generics MVP", as
23+
proposed by boats in [a recent blog
24+
post](https://without.boats/blog/shipping-const-generics/).
25+
26+
You can read the [minutes from the meeting] to learn more details or
27+
to find a link to the recording. In general, though, we were all
28+
pretty excited about the idea. I expect that we will be creating a
29+
project group soon around const generics and that its first goal will
30+
be working towards this MVP.
31+
32+
[minutes from the meeting]: https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/design-meeting-minutes/2020-07-22-Const-generics-MVP.md
Lines changed: 55 additions & 0 deletions
Original file line numberDiff line numberDiff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
1+
---
2+
layout: post
3+
title: "Lang team design meeting: well-formedness and type aliases"
4+
author: Niko Matsakis
5+
description: "Well-formedness and type aliases meeting report"
6+
team: the lang team <https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/lang>
7+
---
8+
9+
Hello! Did you know that the [lang team] now has regular design
10+
meetings? We use these meetings to dig deeper into the output of
11+
active project groups. After the meeting, we typically post a
12+
recording to [YouTube] as well as some [minutes into the lang-team
13+
repository][min]. I wanted to write a quick update listing out some of
14+
the meetings we've had recently as well as some of our upcoming
15+
meetings.
16+
17+
[YouTube]: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL85XCvVPmGQg-gYy7R6a_Y91oQLdsbSpa
18+
[lang team]: https://www.rust-lang.org/governance/teams/lang
19+
[min]: https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/tree/master/design-meeting-minutes
20+
21+
This blog post is about the meeting we held on 2020-07-29. We
22+
discussed the idea of trying to enforce the "well-formedness" rules
23+
for type aliases, as has been floated on and off over the years.
24+
25+
The context is that the compiler's current rules expand type aliases
26+
as if they were a kind of macro, which means that we don't wind up
27+
enforcing many sorts of rules about them.
28+
29+
For example, the following type alias definition is legal even though
30+
it would be an error to ever use it:
31+
32+
```rust
33+
struct MyType<T: Display> { t: T }
34+
35+
// This alias, perhaps, should err, as `Vec<u32>: Display`
36+
// does not hold:
37+
type MyAlias = MyType<Vec<u32>>;
38+
```
39+
40+
For more information, check out the [minutes from the meeting] or
41+
[watch the recording]. We covered a number of examples of what goes
42+
wrong, as well as various possible "endstates" that we might want to
43+
reach (for example, there is an argument that the above example should
44+
be accepted after all, perhaps with a warning).
45+
46+
The conclusion during the meeting was that we would not put a lot of
47+
energy into type aliases at this time, and in particular we wouldn't
48+
aim for any Edition-related migrations and hard-errors, but we would
49+
accept PRs that introduce warnings for type alias definitions that are
50+
always an error to use. (Like any conclusion that happens in a
51+
meeting, it may be revised if we encounter new evidence that changes
52+
our minds.)
53+
54+
[minutes from the meeting]: https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/design-meeting-minutes/2020-07-29-wf-checks-and-ty-aliases.md
55+
[watch the recording]: https://youtu.be/tIBZYQSA_eM

0 commit comments

Comments
 (0)