Skip to content

Document #[cfg(version(...))] #1828

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

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Conversation

est31
Copy link
Member

@est31 est31 commented May 17, 2025

Document #[cfg(version(...))] as it is to be stabilized.

Tracking issue: rust-lang/rust#64796
RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2523
Stabilization PR: rust-lang/rust#141137
Earlier documentation PR filed for the first attempt: #981

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: The marked PR is awaiting review from a maintainer label May 17, 2025
Comment on lines +58 to +61
r[cfg.predicate.version]
* `version()` with a version number inside. It is true if the language version
the compiler targets is higher or equal to the contained version number.
It is false otherwise.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This needs grammar, above, as for the other predicates.

@ehuss ehuss added the S-waiting-on-stabilization Waiting for a stabilization PR to be merged in the main Rust repository label May 17, 2025
Copy link
Contributor

@ehuss ehuss left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you make sure to not wrap lines when adding new content?

r[cfg.version]
## The `version()` predicate

r[cfg.version.behaviour]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Currently using American English for the reference.

Suggested change
r[cfg.version.behaviour]
r[cfg.version.behavior]

@@ -371,6 +395,12 @@ fn needs_not_foo() {
// ...
}

// This function is only included if the language version is newer than 1.50.0
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Should this be "at least 1.50.0"? Or "greater than or equal to"?

Comment on lines +307 to +308
r[cfg.version]
## The `version()` predicate
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It seems a little confusing to have both this and cfg.predicate.version. I'm wondering if it would make sense to extend the "option" grammar to include version(...), and just remove cfg.predicate.version? Then version() would just be another option shown in the list here.

And the section header should probably be third level, and match the style of the other options.

Suggested change
r[cfg.version]
## The `version()` predicate
r[cfg.version]
### `version()`

Comment on lines +315 to +317
of the language the compiler targets. Usually the compiler version and
language version match. So compiler version `1.50.0` targets language
`1.50.0`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Usually the reference focuses on the language and not specifics about the compiler or specific implementations. The text here seems a little confusing in that regard. I would probably just strike this content.

Suggested change
of the language the compiler targets. Usually the compiler version and
language version match. So compiler version `1.50.0` targets language
`1.50.0`.
of the language the compiler targets.


r[cfg.version.format]
In order for it to be considered of valid format, the version number has to
follow either the `"a.b.c"` scheme or the `"a.b"` scheme, where `a,b,c` are
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Suggested change
follow either the `"a.b.c"` scheme or the `"a.b"` scheme, where `a,b,c` are
follow either the `"a.b.c"` scheme or the `"a.b"` scheme, where `a`, `b`, and `c` are

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: The marked PR is awaiting review from a maintainer S-waiting-on-stabilization Waiting for a stabilization PR to be merged in the main Rust repository
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants