I'm guessing that details changed during the implementation (again, I wish those were documented in the RFC after the fact).
@Jake Goulding those rules were set by RFC 1156
Regarding updating RFCs, I think what you really wish is that we had an up-to-date and more complete language reference.
That would also be nice. The problem is that RFCs exist but the reference doesn't, really.
Nobody likes writing documentation.
But we require the RFC to be written, so it exists.
theoretically we require docs to be written when a feature is "done", but point me to some user-facing documentation that says
impl trait exists :sad:
but yes I think that addressing our "reference" needs is something I would like to see make it onto the Rust 2018 roadmap
@nikomatsakis the "problem" with the edition guide is that it's not on https://doc.rust-lang.org. For many end-users, it's the same as an arbitrary blog.
maybe we should ping @Steve Klabnik and fix that :)
and/or open a PR for that...
I'll raise the question
would be a good thing to have at least once we announce the edition
Wasn't that raised already?
For my PR that linked it in a diagnostic message.
I believe we moved it to a new location
I don't know if we were going to list it from that page or not
I read @Jake Goulding's message as "it isn't hosted under d.r-l.o" instead of "it isn't listed on the page at d.r-l.o"
ah, I know we had planned to change that URL, yes
steve says "that's the plan, but in a few weeks" (re: listing on doc.rust-lang.org)
but in a few weeks
I don't know how that plays with the fact that the docs there ride the trains... but "not my circus, not my monkeys"
I guess they can merge to the master, release, and beta branches
I guess that's going to be backported to beta
well, in a few weeks it's just beta, not release
well, it's a month and half until the next release, I think we can manage to backport it before 1.31