@varkor I'm confused by this comment of yours:
Maybe. There was only a single case in the stdlib in the end, and such a case in other code should be straightforwardly refactored.
In particular, I didn't see any edits to libstd?
@nikomatsakis: that confused me when you pointed it out, too.
because I don't remember reverting the change to libstd
I think what must have happened is that it got lost when I was rebasing and I didn't notice because the tests continued to pass
I guess we don't test that configuration in travis
my suspicion is that the warning takes desugaring into account and that maybe https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/54787 fixed it unintionally
well, the tests were failing before for the wasm target
oh, could .. be ..
it's just a guess though; I'm not really sure
ok, do you want to investigate?
or are you satisfied with PR as is
in terms of the externally-visible result, I'm happy either way — I think a warning is acceptable for cases like
TcpStream, but if it's no longer going to warn in a desugared context, that also seems reasonable
but if you feel that we should work out exactly why this behaviour changed, I can investigate it
I'm satisfied either way I think
okay, let's just go with it; I feel like it's been in statis long enough :big_smile:
(that's one enthusiastic emoji)
are you happy with the
I am satisfied; I would be happier if it included a comment
(Maybe happier still if we could make it conditional on the configuration)
personally though this seems like a case where a comment is "just fine"
e.g., "In some configurations, e.g., WASM,
TcpStream is not supported and hence this is dead code; suppress the resulting warning, since in other platforms, the code is not dead."
@nikomatsakis @varkor what's the status of this PR? can you update it on the PR? thanks (from triage)