Initiate the inner usage of `cfg_match` (Library) by c410-f3r · Pull Request #116342 · rust-lang/rust
labels
Oct 2, 2023
c410-f3r
changed the title
Initiate the inner usage of cfg_match (Library)
Initiate the inner usage of cfg_match (Library)
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
and removed S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.labels
Feb 18, 2024
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
and removed S-waiting-on-bors
Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.labels
Feb 19, 2024
Dylan-DPC
added
S-waiting-on-author
and removed S-waiting-on-review
Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.labels
Feb 20, 2024
Dylan-DPC
added
the
S-inactive
label
Feb 22, 2024matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request
Jan 16, 2025…joshtriplett [cfg_match] Adjust syntax A year has passed since the creation of rust-lang#115585 and the feature, as expected, is not moving forward. Let's change that. This PR proposes changing the arm's syntax from `cfg(SOME_CONDITION) => { ... }` to `SOME_CODITION => {}`. ```rust match_cfg! { unix => { fn foo() { /* unix specific functionality */ } } target_pointer_width = "32" => { fn foo() { /* non-unix, 32-bit functionality */ } } _ => { fn foo() { /* fallback implementation */ } } } ``` Why? Because after several manual migrations in rust-lang#116342 it became clear, at least for me, that `cfg` prefixes are unnecessary, verbose and redundant. Again, everything is just a proposal to move things forward. If the shown syntax isn't ideal, feel free to close this PR or suggest other alternatives.
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request
Jan 16, 2025…joshtriplett [cfg_match] Adjust syntax A year has passed since the creation of rust-lang#115585 and the feature, as expected, is not moving forward. Let's change that. This PR proposes changing the arm's syntax from `cfg(SOME_CONDITION) => { ... }` to `SOME_CODITION => {}`. ```rust match_cfg! { unix => { fn foo() { /* unix specific functionality */ } } target_pointer_width = "32" => { fn foo() { /* non-unix, 32-bit functionality */ } } _ => { fn foo() { /* fallback implementation */ } } } ``` Why? Because after several manual migrations in rust-lang#116342 it became clear, at least for me, that `cfg` prefixes are unnecessary, verbose and redundant. Again, everything is just a proposal to move things forward. If the shown syntax isn't ideal, feel free to close this PR or suggest other alternatives.
matthiaskrgr added a commit to matthiaskrgr/rust that referenced this pull request
Jan 16, 2025…joshtriplett [cfg_match] Adjust syntax A year has passed since the creation of rust-lang#115585 and the feature, as expected, is not moving forward. Let's change that. This PR proposes changing the arm's syntax from `cfg(SOME_CONDITION) => { ... }` to `SOME_CODITION => {}`. ```rust match_cfg! { unix => { fn foo() { /* unix specific functionality */ } } target_pointer_width = "32" => { fn foo() { /* non-unix, 32-bit functionality */ } } _ => { fn foo() { /* fallback implementation */ } } } ``` Why? Because after several manual migrations in rust-lang#116342 it became clear, at least for me, that `cfg` prefixes are unnecessary, verbose and redundant. Again, everything is just a proposal to move things forward. If the shown syntax isn't ideal, feel free to close this PR or suggest other alternatives.
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request
Jan 16, 2025Rollup merge of rust-lang#133720 - c410-f3r:cfg-match-foo-bar-baz, r=joshtriplett [cfg_match] Adjust syntax A year has passed since the creation of rust-lang#115585 and the feature, as expected, is not moving forward. Let's change that. This PR proposes changing the arm's syntax from `cfg(SOME_CONDITION) => { ... }` to `SOME_CODITION => {}`. ```rust match_cfg! { unix => { fn foo() { /* unix specific functionality */ } } target_pointer_width = "32" => { fn foo() { /* non-unix, 32-bit functionality */ } } _ => { fn foo() { /* fallback implementation */ } } } ``` Why? Because after several manual migrations in rust-lang#116342 it became clear, at least for me, that `cfg` prefixes are unnecessary, verbose and redundant. Again, everything is just a proposal to move things forward. If the shown syntax isn't ideal, feel free to close this PR or suggest other alternatives.
github-actions bot pushed a commit to tautschnig/verify-rust-std that referenced this pull request
Mar 11, 2025…joshtriplett [cfg_match] Adjust syntax A year has passed since the creation of rust-lang#115585 and the feature, as expected, is not moving forward. Let's change that. This PR proposes changing the arm's syntax from `cfg(SOME_CONDITION) => { ... }` to `SOME_CODITION => {}`. ```rust match_cfg! { unix => { fn foo() { /* unix specific functionality */ } } target_pointer_width = "32" => { fn foo() { /* non-unix, 32-bit functionality */ } } _ => { fn foo() { /* fallback implementation */ } } } ``` Why? Because after several manual migrations in rust-lang#116342 it became clear, at least for me, that `cfg` prefixes are unnecessary, verbose and redundant. Again, everything is just a proposal to move things forward. If the shown syntax isn't ideal, feel free to close this PR or suggest other alternatives.
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters. Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters