Skip to content

Explain why Task does not impl Eq + Hash. #689

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

carllerche
Copy link
Member

Attempt to clarify the problem with using a set structure to store tasks.

This question has come up a bunch; e.g. #670.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

Hm the API docs seem like it's not quite the right location for something like this (an FAQ), maybe something like the website and/or somewhere on this repo?

@carllerche
Copy link
Member Author

I mean, the API docs is where people are going to come by here and see it. If you want to move the snippet to a different location, feel free to do so. I just see this question coming up repeatedly so I am trying to address the confusion.

@seanmonstar
Copy link
Contributor

Instead of putting this in the documentation, I'd just leave this as comments in the code, so anyone showing to try adding it can see why. (To clarify, as // instead of /// comments.)

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

sounds reasonable to me!

@burdges
Copy link

burdges commented Jan 12, 2018

I can't comment specifically on where to draw the line in the current situation, but I like it when API docs give a bit more insight into the design and correct usage, like say https://docs.rs/curve25519-dalek/0.14.0/curve25519_dalek/ristretto/index.html

@ahmedcharles
Copy link
Contributor

This is effectively a documenting rationale. There's precedence for having documentation with rationale (all Boost libraries are required to document rationale for important design decisions... there's even a "rationale rationale"): http://www.boost.org/development/requirements.html#Rationale

I.e. add it and your users will thank you later (though, change FAQ to Rationale).

@aturon
Copy link
Member

aturon commented Mar 16, 2018

@carllerche want to update this to attach it to Waker?

@carllerche
Copy link
Member Author

@aturon Update it how? afaik, the PR was not accepted?

@carllerche carllerche mentioned this pull request Aug 29, 2018
@carllerche
Copy link
Member Author

Continued here: #1236

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants