-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 71
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
Contracts attributes in rustc #813
Labels
Comments
cc @jdonszelmann as author of rust#131229 |
cc @celinval as the person pushing forward the work on rust-lang/rust#128045 |
I finalized documenting the existing architecture: https://hackmd.io/@celinaval/B1UEl3tUyl |
9 tasks
@celinval that document still says "Work in progress: This document is not ready for review"? |
I removed the in progress note. Thanks |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Meeting proposal info
Summary
The meeting is about the direction that rust#128045 should take and how they could be implemented.
The proposal was opened by @pnkfelix who then handed development to @celinval. It was discussed briefly in a compiler triage meeting. This works intersect with the attribute refactoring, which is tracked rust#131229.
The design meeting should focus on validating/refining the design of rust#128045 and how it fits in a bigger attribute refactoring story.
About this issue
This issue corresponds to a meeting proposal for the compiler team
steering meeting. It corresponds to a possible topic of
discussion. You can read more about the steering meeting procedure
here.
Comment policy
These issues are meant to be used as an "announcements channel"
regarding the proposal, and not as a place to discuss the technical
details. Feel free to subscribe to updates. We'll post comments when
reviewing the proposal in meetings or making a scheduling decision.
In the meantime, if you have questions or ideas, ping the proposers
on Zulip (or elsewhere).
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: