Stream: t-compiler/wg-nll

Topic: weekly meeting 2019.03.20


pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 14:30, on Zulip):

hi @WG-nll

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 14:32, on Zulip):

due to USA's out-of-sync DST, my existing calendar says the WG-nll meeting time tonight is in about 5 hours

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 14:32, on Zulip):

(3:30 PM USA EST; 8:30 PM Europe CET)

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 14:33, on Zulip):

following my recent convention, i'll be taking pre-triage notes in a parallel topic.

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 14:34, on Zulip):

(and if anything comes up that I want more visibility on, I'll note it in this topic as well.)

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 14:53, on Zulip):

in any case, please do post status updates from the past two weeks, if any, on the weekly meeting paper doc

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:31, on Zulip):

hi again @WG-nll

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:34, on Zulip):

sorry I'm a little distracted at the moment; there is a bit of chaos at my house while the grandparents depart and a 2.5 year old is dancing around to keep them

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:36, on Zulip):

as I noted in the meeting notes, we effectively didn't have a meeting last week

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:36, on Zulip):

so feel free to post status updates from the last two weeks

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:38, on Zulip):

there is effectively only one nominated issue: " NLL diagnostic regression on generator + short-lived yield" #56508

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:38, on Zulip):

@davidtwco ,we filed this after your PR #56460

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:39, on Zulip):

the main question I have is: Do we have any idea if we need to assign this high-priority based on its interactions with async/await (which I understand to be an important feature in the near term)

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:40, on Zulip):

its okay if we don't know the answer now, but if we don't know the answer, I'd like someone to take on the task of trying to find out the answer in some fashion

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:41, on Zulip):

(one potential step in such an investigation would be to check with the WG-async-await to see if they have any insight, about what subset of functionality is most likely to be stabilized in the near term)

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:45, on Zulip):

hmm I'm thinking that tonight's meeting is potentially as dead as last week's (or "even more dead"... if we are using a spectrum for measurement)

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 19:47, on Zulip):

(this is fine; it may be a sign that we should simply cancel this meeting.)

Matthew Jasper (Mar 20 2019 at 19:55, on Zulip):

the main question I have is: Do we have any idea if we need to assign this high-priority based on its interactions with async/await (which I understand to be an important feature in the near term)

I don't think that it's likely to interact with async-await since await yields a fieldless variant of Poll.

Matthew Jasper (Mar 20 2019 at 19:57, on Zulip):

the last nominated issue is "More restrictive 2 phase borrows - take 2" #58739; the nomination is targeted at the lang team, but as I mentioned on the topic for this PR, I am wondering if we can at least land the PR by changing the lint to default to #![allow].

I don't really see this helping, because stabilizing NLL on the 2015 edition would still be blocked on a decision.

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 20:01, on Zulip):

(well it would at least get one big-ish PR out of the way...)

davidtwco (Mar 20 2019 at 20:10, on Zulip):

davidtwco ,we filed this after your PR #56460

@pnkfelix I’m working on a few other things just now but I’m happy to add this to the todo list if nobody else wants to tackle it.

davidtwco (Mar 20 2019 at 20:11, on Zulip):

Particularly as it is related to #t-compiler/wg-async-await where I’ve been doing some work.

davidtwco (Mar 20 2019 at 20:12, on Zulip):

hmm I'm thinking that tonight's meeting is potentially as dead as last week's (or "even more dead"... if we are using a spectrum for measurement)

I’ve not been actively following the meeting any more but I usually check in throughout as I’m mostly focusing on other working groups at the moment.

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 21:16, on Zulip):

@davidtwco okay, thanks for filling me in

davidtwco (Mar 20 2019 at 21:35, on Zulip):

pnkfelix I’m working on a few other things just now but I’m happy to add this to the todo list if nobody else wants to tackle it.

I see now that matthew has self-assigned it (that wasn't visible on mobile).

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 23:01, on Zulip):

I see now that matthew has self-assigned it (that wasn't visible on mobile).

yes, matthew self-assigned it back on February 10th. There hasn't been much activity since then; I don't know if it is still on matthew's radar.

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 23:02, on Zulip):

I don't think that it's likely to interact with async-await since await yields a fieldless variant of Poll.

Okay this is an important detail. That makes me think we can probably safely assign #56508 a P-medium priority.

pnkfelix (Mar 20 2019 at 23:04, on Zulip):

@Matthew Jasper and @davidtwco , do either of you have an objection to such a priority assignment there? ^

davidtwco (Mar 20 2019 at 23:04, on Zulip):

Fine by me.

Matthew Jasper (Mar 20 2019 at 23:41, on Zulip):

I'm not likely to work on any diagnostic issues until migrate mode is on for the 2015 edition, to minimise the rebases.

pnkfelix (Mar 21 2019 at 09:52, on Zulip):

I'm not likely to work on any diagnostic issues until migrate mode is on for the 2015 edition, to minimise the rebases.

this is actually a good philosophy in terms of how we prioritize the bugs

Last update: Nov 21 2019 at 13:25UTC