Tracking issue for RFC 3458: Unsafe fields
Open
Nobody has claimed this yet.
B-RFC-approved
C-tracking-issue
F-unsafe_fields
S-tracking-needs-to-bake
T-lang
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 119k
- Forks
- 16.1k
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
This is a tracking issue for:
The feature gate for the issue is #![feature(unsafe_fields)].
About tracking issues
Tracking issues are used to record the overall progress of implementation. They are also used as hubs connecting to other relevant issues, e.g., bugs or open design questions. A tracking issue is however not meant for large scale discussion, questions, or bug reports about a feature. Instead, open a dedicated issue for the specific matter and add the relevant feature gate label.
Steps
- Approve as lang experiment.
- Accept an RFC.
- Implement in nightly.
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132915
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133934
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/134008
- Add rustfmt support
- Add
clippy::missing_safety_docsupport - Add rustdoc support
- Add documentation to the dev guide.
- See the instructions.
- Add documentation to the reference.
- See the instructions.
- Add formatting for new syntax to the style guide.
- See the nightly style procedure.
- Stabilize.
- See the instructions.
Unresolved Questions
- If the syntax for restrictions does not change, what is the ordering of keywords on a field that is both unsafe and mut-restricted?
Related
TODO.
cc @jswrenn @veluca93 @jhpratt @rust-lang/lang
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.
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.