rust-lang / rust-lang/reference
Guidelines for parts that are intentionally unspecified
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
Authoring guide
Meta
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 1.6k
- Forks
- 607
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
I think the authoring guide should have some guidelines on when something can be intentionally unspecified. Do we want to ever allow that? If so, do we want to formalize that (similar to how C spec does)?
Contributor guide
First steps
- Read the whole issue, then the project's contributing guide.
- Comment on the issue to say you are picking it up — it saves two people doing the same work.
- Fork the repository and make your change on a branch.
- Open a pull request that references the issue number.
Research direction
Start by locating the authoring guide and reviewing how it currently describes unspecified behavior. Compare the treatment with the C specification, then determine whether intentional unspecified parts should be allowed and formally documented. Done means the guide contains an agreed, explicit policy and examples or rules for identifying such cases.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- c, rust
- Domain
- documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 5/5
- Estimated time
- Over a week
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Needs clarification
- Newbie friendliness
- 25/100