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 mpsc::Receiver::try_iter #34931

Closed
mitchmindtree opened this issue Jul 20, 2016 · 6 comments
Closed

Tracking issue for mpsc::Receiver::try_iter #34931

mitchmindtree opened this issue Jul 20, 2016 · 6 comments
Labels
B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@mitchmindtree
Copy link
Contributor

Tracking issue for the new non-blocking mpsc::Receiver iterator API introduced in #34724.

The API is currently gated behind the unstable receiver_try_iter feature.

The API includes:

  • std::sync::mpsc::Receiver::try_iter
  • std::sync::mpsc::TryIter

cc @alexcrichton

mitchmindtree added a commit to mitchmindtree/rust that referenced this issue Jul 20, 2016
@alexcrichton alexcrichton added T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. labels Jul 20, 2016
@mitchmindtree
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hey folks, just thought I'd ping this and ask if there's anything I can do to help guide this towards stable? Would love to start using it, but no worries if it's just low on the priority list 👍

@leroycep
Copy link

I'd like to know the same thing as mitchmindtree. Is this being guide towards stable?

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

@rfcbot fcp merge

Seems like a nifty API to have!

@rfcbot
Copy link

rfcbot commented Nov 1, 2016

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 these reviewers reach consensus, 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
Copy link

rfcbot commented Nov 14, 2016

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

psst @alexcrichton, I wasn't able to add the final-comment-period label, please do so.

@alexcrichton alexcrichton added the final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. label Nov 14, 2016
@rfcbot
Copy link

rfcbot commented Nov 24, 2016

The final comment period is now complete.

bors added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 18, 2016
Library stabilizations/deprecations for 1.15 release

Stabilized:

- `std::iter::Iterator::{min_by, max_by}`
- `std::os::*::fs::FileExt`
- `std::sync::atomic::Atomic*::{get_mut, into_inner}`
- `std::vec::IntoIter::{as_slice, as_mut_slice}`
- `std::sync::mpsc::Receiver::try_iter`
- `std::os::unix::process::CommandExt::before_exec`
- `std::rc::Rc::{strong_count, weak_count}`
- `std::sync::Arc::{strong_count, weak_count}`
- `std::char::{encode_utf8, encode_utf16}`
- `std::cell::Ref::clone`
- `std::io::Take::into_inner`

Deprecated:

- `std::rc::Rc::{would_unwrap, is_unique}`
- `std::cell::RefCell::borrow_state`

Closes #23755
Closes #27733
Closes #27746
Closes #27784
Closes #28356
Closes #31398
Closes #34931
Closes #35601
Closes #35603
Closes #35918
Closes #36105
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
B-unstable Blocker: Implemented in the nightly compiler and unstable. final-comment-period In the final comment period and will be merged soon unless new substantive objections are raised. T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants