Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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
RFC:
c"…"
string literals #3348RFC:
c"…"
string literals #3348Changes from 1 commit
9fdd8f1
df9bd28
a1306b6
7651870
5fa8056
534349c
b4ccc53
f30e5ba
0056759
2196c96
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I wish byte string literals had this support too, so big 👍 on this!
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It might be worth proposing that in a separate RFC. That would also resolve one unresolved question of
concat_bytes
, if we accept that mixing UTF-8 and non-UTF-8 in byte strings is okay.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Wrote an RFC for that: #3349
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think this should be a blocker on stabilization, yeah.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I don't see how this feature is blocked by that at all really. It produces an
&'static CStr
regardless of what&CStr
itself is made of.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@Kixiron To be clear, I think considering that question should be a blocker for stabilization.
Given that a major use case of this will be FFI, it seems important that we have a simple, not-error-prone way of passing a C string to C functions. If we decide that
&CStr
wasn't that mechanism, then we should decide what that mechanism should be, and make surec"..."
works well with that.