You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
So we encountered some problems that people are relying on things gated by "feature=unstable" (e.g., #364). This isn't really surprising. I was thinking that a better approach would be use a cfg flag that is not tied to a feature. Therefore, in order to build Rayon with experimental features, you would have to do:
RUSTFLAGS='--cfg rayon_unstable' cargo build
This flag will propagate to the rayon create, which will then include unstable features. This has the same "infectious" property that Rust nightly builds do: you can't use an unstable feature in your crate without the top-level crate being forced to acknowledge it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@nikomatsakis: I read your issue report and the issue you referred to, but I don’t yet understand what the advantage of using a cfg flag is here, over using a Cargo feature. I suppose you implicitly were talking about keeping the rayon-core and rayon in sync. Before I continue, is that correct?
So we encountered some problems that people are relying on things gated by "feature=unstable" (e.g., #364). This isn't really surprising. I was thinking that a better approach would be use a
cfg
flag that is not tied to a feature. Therefore, in order to build Rayon with experimental features, you would have to do:This flag will propagate to the rayon create, which will then include unstable features. This has the same "infectious" property that Rust nightly builds do: you can't use an unstable feature in your crate without the top-level crate being forced to acknowledge it.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: