-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 58
Add const generics 2025h2 goal #313
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
|
||
| Task | Owner(s) or team(s) | Notes | | ||
|-----------------------------------|---------------------|-------| | ||
| `adt_const_params` design meeting | [lang] | | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So, wearing my @rust-lang/lang hat for a moment, I'm keen to see this work go foward, but I also am aware we've had some miscommunication in this area for a while now. Maybe it'd be good to start with a more general design meeting, basiically starting out with a doc that tries to give everybody a general grounding in how const generics works, how it interacts with const eval, what some of the challenges are? There wouldn't be any decisions to make, it'd just be a knowledge sharing (and documenting) session.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Knowing what I know about adt_const_params
, a there-focused meeting could still be a good general meeting because discussing adt_const_params
re: getting it ready towards landing does imply summarizing the state of "what we can do in const generics without question, and what will require design decisions to advance". Does that still rhyme with what you have in mind?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Could be, yes. Put another way, I just don't see us getting through everything in 1 meeting, not really.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yes. Notably, this proposal kinda elides, by focusing on the next 6 months, that already some things were cut out from adt_const_params
as a feature to get it down towards things that we could ship sooner. So maybe the meeting would also (briefly) discuss the longer trajectory and why those things are blocked and not shipping with other things.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can put another meeting on here that seems reasonable 🤔
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think "talk about the challenges" doesn't really work if we were to go into much depth though. the main thing i would expect an adt_const_params design meeting to involve would be covering all of the challenges involved. and I expect that to take up an entire meeting. talking about the challenges of all const generics features in anything other than a very shallow way is likely not possible 🤔
Co-authored-by: Jubilee <[email protected]>
Rendered