Stream: t-compiler/wg-prioritization/alerts

Topic: I-prioritize #79658 Parsable associated enum constructor

triagebot (Dec 04 2020 at 02:52, on Zulip):

@WG-prioritization/alerts issue #79658 has been requested for prioritization.


Camelid (Dec 04 2020 at 02:52, on Zulip):

Doesn't seem to be a regression, but looks like P-high to me

Joshua Nelson (Dec 04 2020 at 05:36, on Zulip):

is this even a bug? I think this would be a langauge change if it parsed

Joshua Nelson (Dec 04 2020 at 05:36, on Zulip):

which means it doesn't make sense to prioritize

lcnr (Dec 04 2020 at 08:38, on Zulip):

this looks like a feature request to me

lcnr (Dec 04 2020 at 08:39, on Zulip):

though it is a really sensible one as tuple variants work and only ones with named fields don't

Camelid (Dec 04 2020 at 21:20, on Zulip):

I guess it might be a lang change, but is it an intentional lang decision that it's this way, or was it something that just wasn't caught during implementation?

Camelid (Dec 04 2020 at 21:21, on Zulip):

I'm going to nominate for T-lang T-compiler

Camelid (Dec 04 2020 at 21:21, on Zulip):

Note that rylev self-assigned this issue

Camelid (Dec 04 2020 at 21:39, on Zulip):

From petrochenkov:

It's intended in the sense that qualified paths <Foo as Bar>::Baz are so useless in

- struct expression,

- struct pattern, and

- tuple struct pattern

contexts that nobody ever bothered implementing them.

Name resolution and type checking support for associated items in these positions was implemented in late 2016 (#37035), starting from that point the surface syntax for qualified paths could be added at any point.

I guess they can be supported now for consistency.

I don't know enough about FQS (I still haven't found a use for it) to fully understand what they're saying, but it seems like they think it's fine to support this. Probably should still wait for the rest of the team to talk about it though.

apiraino (Dec 09 2020 at 16:32, on Zulip):

Since it has been nominated to be discussed during T-compiler tomorrow's meeting, I'd suspend assigning a priority, then let's see

Camelid (Dec 09 2020 at 21:39, on Zulip):

(apiraino removed I-nominated on suggestion from spastorino)

Camelid (Dec 11 2020 at 22:44, on Zulip):

Perhaps P-medium?

apiraino (Dec 16 2020 at 16:31, on Zulip):

Probably yes a P-medium at this point sounds ok. It also looks to be taken care of by Ryan Levick

apiraino (Dec 16 2020 at 16:32, on Zulip):

well ... perfect timing ... the PR just appeared :D

triagebot (Dec 16 2020 at 16:32, on Zulip):

Issue #79658's prioritization request has been removed.

Last update: Apr 10 2021 at 22:30UTC