Skip to content
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

Tracking issue for non-panicking pow #48320

Closed
milesand opened this issue Feb 18, 2018 · 8 comments · Fixed by #57873
Closed

Tracking issue for non-panicking pow #48320

milesand opened this issue Feb 18, 2018 · 8 comments · Fixed by #57873
Labels
C-tracking-issue Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@milesand
Copy link
Contributor

milesand commented Feb 18, 2018

Relevant PR: #48321

@frewsxcv frewsxcv added the C-tracking-issue Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature. label Feb 18, 2018
@pietroalbini pietroalbini added the T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Feb 20, 2018
kennytm added a commit to kennytm/rust that referenced this issue Feb 27, 2018
Add non-panicking variants of pow for integer types

Currently, calling pow may panic in case of overflow, and the function does not have non-panicking counterparts. Thus, it would be beneficial to add those in.

Closes rust-lang#48291.
Relevant tracking issue: rust-lang#48320
kennytm added a commit to kennytm/rust that referenced this issue Feb 28, 2018
Add non-panicking variants of pow for integer types

Currently, calling pow may panic in case of overflow, and the function does not have non-panicking counterparts. Thus, it would be beneficial to add those in.

Closes rust-lang#48291.
Relevant tracking issue: rust-lang#48320
@Restioson
Copy link

Can this be closed?

@milesand
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm sorry, it's been a while.

While this feature hasn't received much feedback by itself, but with already-stable similar functionalities present, I think this feature can be stabilized as-is.

I'm not familiar with the stabilization process though. What should I do here?

@ghost
Copy link

ghost commented Dec 21, 2018

@milesand any idea when this will be stabilized? Is it going to be stabilized?

@milesand
Copy link
Contributor Author

milesand commented Dec 22, 2018

@alexcrichton Can we stabilize thie feature?

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@rfcbot fcp merge

Seems reasonable to me! The APIs being stabilized here (as I understand it) are:

i8::checked_pow(self, u32) -> Option<i8>
i8::saturating_pow(self, u32) -> i8
i8::wrapping_pow(self, u32) -> i8
i8::overflowing_pow(self, u32) -> (i8, bool)

(and similar for all other integral types)

@rfcbot
Copy link

rfcbot commented Jan 2, 2019

Team member @alexcrichton has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged teams:

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and none object), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

@rfcbot rfcbot added proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. labels Jan 2, 2019
@rfcbot
Copy link

rfcbot commented Jan 2, 2019

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

@rfcbot rfcbot removed the proposed-final-comment-period Proposed to merge/close by relevant subteam, see T-<team> label. Will enter FCP once signed off. label Jan 2, 2019
@rfcbot
Copy link

rfcbot commented Jan 12, 2019

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

@rfcbot rfcbot added finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. and removed final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. labels Jan 12, 2019
Centril added a commit to Centril/rust that referenced this issue Jan 24, 2019
Stabilize no_panic_pow

This would close rust-lang#48320.

I'm not sure if I've done this right, I've just changed attribute name to stable and set `since` to two minor versions above current stable since that seemed like what others were doing.
@bors bors closed this as completed in 5fa1016 Jan 25, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C-tracking-issue Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature. disposition-merge This issue / PR is in PFCP or FCP with a disposition to merge it. finished-final-comment-period The final comment period is finished for this PR / Issue. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

6 participants