4 ms·

Right, it's nothing to do with it being "newly added". That issue had been filed by its OP as a feature request. It then got repurposed into a tracking issue f

Right, it's nothing to do with it being "newly added". That issue had been filed by its OP as a feature request. It then got repurposed into a tracking issue for the feature, but it's not following the standard tracking issue template that lists any blockers, stabilization steps, etc. (Compare to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119364 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/119364 that happens to be the newest "Tracking issue" atm.) Also since the OP didn't intend for it to be the tracking issue, it's possible they're not intending to do the rest of the bureaucracy to get it stabilized either, which is why it's stalled.

LoganDark 3y ago
> Right, it's nothing to do with it being "newly added". It absolutely was, but now it seems to be mostly that the stabilization process is tedious enough that nobody has done it yet for this tiny utility function. There are tens of other tiny utility functions in the same situation that have been sitting for years, I run into them all the time. The whole situation surrounding "unstable features" is just super disappointing for me. This stuff doesn't deserve to be unstable, and I shouldn't have to switch to an experimental toolchain that breaks all the time just to use these tiny utility functions!
- Arnavion 3y ago
  >It absolutely was No, there is no such absolute requirement that "newly added" functions cannot be stabilized. Off the top of my head: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111544 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111544 `OsStr::as_encoded_bytes` was proposed in 2023-05, finished being implemented in 2023-07, stabilized in 2023-09, and released in 2023-11. >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801228 The reason attr of "newly added" is the reason to *mark the function unstable* when it was implemented. It's not the reason to *prevent it from being stabilized.*
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    > No, there is no such absolute requirement that "newly added" functions cannot be stabilized. I never said so.
    - Arnavion 3y ago
      You did, and it was already covered in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801686 so I'm not going to repeat it.
      - shepherdjerred 3y ago
        Thanks for validating my comment. I thought I was going crazy in that thread.

LoganDark 3y ago

> Right, it's nothing to do with it being "newly added". It absolutely was, but now it seems to be mostly that the stabilization process is tedious enough that nobody has done it yet for this tiny utility function. There are tens of other tiny utility functions in the same situation that have been sitting for years, I run into them all the time. The whole situation surrounding "unstable features" is just super disappointing for me. This stuff doesn't deserve to be unstable, and I shouldn't have to switch to an experimental toolchain that breaks all the time just to use these tiny utility functions!

Arnavion 3y ago
>It absolutely was No, there is no such absolute requirement that "newly added" functions cannot be stabilized. Off the top of my head: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111544 https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/111544 `OsStr::as_encoded_bytes` was proposed in 2023-05, finished being implemented in 2023-07, stabilized in 2023-09, and released in 2023-11. >https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801228 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801228 The reason attr of "newly added" is the reason to *mark the function unstable* when it was implemented. It's not the reason to *prevent it from being stabilized.*
- LoganDark 3y ago
  > No, there is no such absolute requirement that "newly added" functions cannot be stabilized. I never said so.
  - Arnavion 3y ago
    You did, and it was already covered in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801686 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38801686 so I'm not going to repeat it.
    - shepherdjerred 3y ago
      Thanks for validating my comment. I thought I was going crazy in that thread.