Style Guide prescriptions on ABI explicitness
Nobody has claimed this yet.
- Dominant language
- Rust
- Stars
- 119k
- Forks
- 16.1k
- PR merge metrics
- PR metrics pending
Description
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3722 seems likely to land albeit for some future edition beyond 2024, and when it does I would propose we remove the existing ABI prescriptions from the Style Guide text
Formatters (at least rustfmt) do not necessarily have the relevant context to know whether formatting changes that involved the ABI would be semantics preserving, and the behavior that matched the "always be explicit" rule in the Style Guide did cause a couple of issues over the years (e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/issues/2908)
Once https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3722 is enacted I think rustfmt should fallback to just maintaining ABI as it exists within the AST, and leave the consideration of whether an ABI has a default and/or is required as a lang item
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
Read the Style Guide's extern-items ABI section and track RFC 3722, then review rustfmt issue #2908 for the motivating behavior. Once the RFC is enacted, update the Style Guide's ABI prescriptions and verify the resulting formatting behavior preserves ABI as represented in the AST.
Written by the indexing model from the issue text.
Assessment
- Tech stack
- rust
- Domain
- compilers, documentation
- Issue type
- Documentation
- Difficulty
- 4/5
- Estimated time
- 3-5 days
- Activity status
- Stale
- Clarity
- Mostly clear
- Newbie friendliness
- 35/100