Tracking Issue for 'ordering helpers'

[jnqnfe]

Feature gate: #![feature(ordering_helpers)]

This is a tracking issue for the 'ordering helpers' feature, which sets out to add some simple helpers to Ordering such as is_ge() for checking whether an instance of Ordering is 'greater than or equal' (is the Greater or Equal variant, not the Less variant).

Public API

// core::cmp
impl Ordering {
    pub const fn is_eq(self) -> bool;
    pub const fn is_ne(self) -> bool;
    pub const fn is_lt(self) -> bool;
    pub const fn is_gt(self) -> bool;
    pub const fn is_le(self) -> bool;
    pub const fn is_ge(self) -> bool;
}

Steps / History

• Implementation: Add some core::cmp::Ordering helpers #79656
• Final commenting period (FCP)
• Stabilization PR: Tracking Issue for 'ordering helpers' #79885

Unresolved Questions

• None yet.

[jnqnfe]

@scottmcm / @sfackler Please advise on next steps.

• Do I make the stabilization PR myself or a team member?
• Given this is such a trivial addition, how much time roughly to wait before doing so? (I presume the FCP starts after that PR is created?)

[m-ou-se]

@jnqnfe Thanks for working on this! I've edited this tracking issue to match the new template for library tracking issues we have now. (It didn't exist yet when you opened this issue. But from now on there should be a 'library tracking issue' option when filing a new issue.)

Do I make the stabilization PR myself or a team member?

To make sure the discussion doesn't split over two different issues/PRs, we prefer to keep everthing including the stabilization decision on this tracking issue. A libs team member can kick off the stabilization process, at which point the rfcbot will ask all the team members to verify they agree with stabilization. Once enough members agree and there are no concerns, the 'final commenting period' begins: this issue will be marked as such and will be listed in the next This Week in Rust newsletter. If no blocking concerns are raised in that period of 10 days, a stabilzation PR can be opened by anyone which can then be approved right away.

Given this is such a trivial addition, how much time roughly to wait before doing so?

Depends a bit on how much in a hurry you are with this new feature, but it's usually a good idea to wait a few release cycles. That way, it has also been visible in the stable documentation for a while (marked as nightly-only), giving it some more exposure to the world.

I presume the FCP starts after that PR is created?

We recently decided to change that, to avoid a new discussion starting on that PR separate from the discussion on the tracking issue. We now prefer to start the FCP on the tracking issue first. (I'll update the new tracking issue template to include this information.)

[Amanieu]

@rfcbot merge

[rfcbot]

Team member @Amanieu has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @Amanieu
• @BurntSushi
• @dtolnay
• @joshtriplett
• @m-ou-se
• @sfackler

No concerns currently listed.

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.

[rfcbot]

🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔

[rfcbot]

The final comment period, with a disposition to merge, as per the review above, is now complete.

As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed.

The RFC will be merged soon.