---
# System prepended metadata

title: Triage meeting 2023-02-14
tags: [triage-meeting]

---

---
title: Triage meeting 2023-02-14
tags: triage-meeting
---

# T-lang meeting agenda

* Meeting date: 2023-02-14

## Attendance

* Team members: Felix, Josh, 
* Others:

## Meeting roles

* Action item scribe:
* Note-taker: Felix

## Scheduled meetings
- "discuss/resolve `fn { mod { (use) super::...; } }` and its interaction with derive patterns" [lang-team#193](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/193)
- "Interface between opsem and lang team" [lang-team#196](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/196)

## Announcements or custom items

- Lokathor: please take a look at https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3382

## Action item review

* [Action items list](https://hackmd.io/gstfhtXYTHa3Jv-P_2RK7A)

## Pending lang team project proposals

None.




## PRs on the lang-team repo
### "Updates to Frequently Requested Changes" lang-team#200

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/pull/200

 * Josh would like someone to review, please. Believes there is no outstanding changes required.

## RFCs waiting to be merged

None.




## Proposed FCPs

**Check your boxes!**
### "Edition Based Method Disambiguation: Preventing inference ambiguity breakages with extension trait methods" rfcs#3240

- **Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3240
- [**Tracking Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3240#issuecomment-1377748067): 
	> Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
	> 
	> * [ ] @Amanieu
	> * [ ] @BurntSushi
	> * [ ] @dtolnay
	> * [x] @joshtriplett
	> * [ ] @m-ou-se
	> * [ ] @nikomatsakis
	> * [ ] @pnkfelix
	> * [ ] @scottmcm
	> * [ ] @tmandry
	> 
	> 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!
	> 
	> cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
	> See [this document](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcbot-rs/blob/master/README.md) for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
- [**Initiating Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3240#issuecomment-1377748031): 
	> @rfcbot merge

* needs folks reading it

### "unsafe attributes" rfcs#3325

- **Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3325
- [**Tracking Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3325#issuecomment-1396911253): 
	> Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
	> 
	> * [x] @joshtriplett
	> * [ ] @nikomatsakis
	> * [ ] @pnkfelix
	> * [ ] @scottmcm
	> * [x] @tmandry
	> 
	> 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!
	> 
	> cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
	> See [this document](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcbot-rs/blob/master/README.md) for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
- [**Initiating Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3325#issuecomment-1396911218): 
	> @rfcbot merge

* looks ready to ship, according to Josh.

### "RFC: UTF-8 characters and escape codes in (byte) string literals" rfcs#3349

- **Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3349
- [**Tracking Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3349#issuecomment-1396747916): 
	> Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
	> 
	> * [x] @joshtriplett
	> * [ ] @nikomatsakis
	> * [ ] @pnkfelix
	> * [ ] @scottmcm
	> * [ ] @tmandry
	> 
	> Concerns:
	> 
	> * raw-byte-strings-with-unicode (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3349#issuecomment-1396747889)
	> 
	> 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!
	> 
	> cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
	> See [this document](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcbot-rs/blob/master/README.md) for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
- [**Initiating Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3349#issuecomment-1396747889): 
	> I do think we should permit `br"Â¥Â¥Â¥"`, but I don't think we should make any of the other changes proposed in that table, for the reasons @m-ou-se stated.
	> 
	> I'm going to go ahead and propose FCP for this. This does *not* preclude making further changes to how this information is presented.
	> 
	> @rfcbot merge
	> 
	> @rfcbot concern raw-byte-strings-with-unicode


### "Tracking issue for RFC 2515, "Permit impl Trait in type aliases"" rust#63063

- **Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063
- [**Tracking Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063#issuecomment-1360043090): 
	> Team member @nikomatsakis has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
	> 
	> * [x] @cramertj
	> * [x] @joshtriplett
	> * [x] @nikomatsakis
	> * [ ] @pnkfelix
	> * [ ] @scottmcm
	> 
	> Concerns:
	> 
	> * ~~~~ resolved by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063#issuecomment-1361432898
	> * docs (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063#issuecomment-1364525286)
	> * function-defining-uses (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063#issuecomment-1385946789)
	> 
	> 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!
	> 
	> cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
	> See [this document](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcbot-rs/blob/master/README.md) for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
- [**Initiating Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063#issuecomment-1360043060): 
	> @rfcbot fcp merge
	> 
	> This has been a long-time coming. Let's Do This!
	> 
	> [Stabilization report in this comment.](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063#issuecomment-1354392317)


### "Tracking Issue for "C-unwind ABI", RFC 2945" rust#74990

- **Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990
- [**Tracking Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990#issuecomment-1363474839): 
	> Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
	> 
	> * [x] @joshtriplett
	> * [x] @nikomatsakis
	> * [ ] @pnkfelix
	> * [x] @scottmcm
	> * [x] @tmandry
	> 
	> Concerns:
	> 
	> * docs (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990#issuecomment-1364528477)
	> 
	> 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!
	> 
	> cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
	> See [this document](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcbot-rs/blob/master/README.md) for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
- [**Initiating Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74990#issuecomment-1363474832): 
	> Shall we stabilize the `extern "C-unwind"` and other `-unwind` calling conventions? This change will leave `extern "C"` unchanged for now, but have the existing feature gate continue to opt into the new behavior on nightly. We'll do a separate change later to make `extern "C"` and similar not permit unwinding.
	> 
	> @rfcbot merge

* tyler says concern about docs is effectively addressed, though the concern itself still needs to be formally addressed

### "Stabilise inline_const" rust#104087

- **Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104087
- [**Tracking Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104087#issuecomment-1350231887): 
	> Team member @scottmcm has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
	> 
	> * [x] @cramertj
	> * [x] @joshtriplett
	> * [x] @nikomatsakis
	> * [ ] @pnkfelix
	> * [x] @scottmcm
	> 
	> Concerns:
	> 
	> * expectations-around-panics-in-inline-const (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104087#issuecomment-1379582240)
	> * post-monomorphization-errors (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104087#issuecomment-1409927203)
	> * should-unused-code-cause-errors (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104087#issuecomment-1410921524)
	> 
	> 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!
	> 
	> cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
	> See [this document](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcbot-rs/blob/master/README.md) for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
- [**Initiating Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104087#issuecomment-1350231871): 
	> Restarting the FCP from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/104087#issuecomment-1315946122
	> 
	> @rfcbot fcp merge


### "Properly allow macro expanded `format_args` invocations to uses captures" rust#106505

- **Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106505
- [**Tracking Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106505#issuecomment-1402511990): 
	> Team member @scottmcm has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:
	> 
	> * [x] @joshtriplett
	> * [ ] @nikomatsakis
	> * [ ] @pnkfelix
	> * [x] @scottmcm
	> * [ ] @tmandry
	> 
	> Concerns:
	> 
	> * ~~please-link-tests~~ resolved by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106505#issuecomment-1416417520
	> 
	> 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!
	> 
	> cc @rust-lang/lang-advisors: FCP proposed for lang, please feel free to register concerns.
	> See [this document](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcbot-rs/blob/master/README.md) for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.
- [**Initiating Comment**](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106505#issuecomment-1402511930): 
	> We discussed this in the lang team meeting today. Broadly we thought that proc macros being able to emit tokens that use captures makes logical sense.  Basically, a proc macro *emitting* something as a whole that one could write directly, as in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106505/files#diff-868206cf54a88d81468a76d45e639cea40c537f2031d19f06c114e3cb329a426R44, seems entirely fine, though mixing things like `format!(concat!(â€¦))` might still be best to reject.
	> 
	> So I'll start a
	> 
	> @rfcbot fcp merge
	> 
	> but we had some requests to confirm, so...

* had raised previous concern regarding ensuring tests are included and linked.
* that's done, waiting for people to review


## Active FCPs
### "Stabilize cmpxchg16b_target_feature" rust#106774

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106774



## P-critical issues

None.




## Nominated RFCs, PRs and issues discussed this meeting

### "Introduce terminating scope for tail expressions of breakable scopes" rust#106493

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106493

* Felix thinks we should push off discussion to this to the broader design meeting rvalue temp lifetimes.
* Action Item: Felix will post comments linking this PR to that design meeting proposal and ping the authors of that design meeting doc.

### "TAIT defining scope options" rust#107645

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/107645

* Discussed previously
* Action Item: Felix to ask Niko whether Niko was supposed to leave a comment?
* Also, PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107809 was posted in response to lang team feedback


### "lang agenda generator ignores lang-nominated closed issues" lang-team#199

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/199

* Team has rough conensus here to move ahead with this change
* Action Item: Felix to talk to apiraino about making the change necessary here (and double-checking that agenda-generation doesn't get its performance tanked with the change in place)

### "Support linking to rust dylib with --crate-type staticlib" rust#106560

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/106560

* Posted a comment last week. Un-nominated.

### "RFC: Start working on a Rust specification" rfcs#3355

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3355

* Action Item: Felix to poke Niko about whether there were take-aways from independent meetings that they want to incorporate into future discussions here.

### "Treat `str` as containing `[u8]` for auto trait purposes" rust#107941

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107941

* We already have accpepted that, as part of *language* validity invariants, that str's are not guaranteed to be UTF-8 formatted.
* This PR can be seen as following that trend, where one cannot really distinguish `str` and `[u8]` at the language level
* The PR author has stated that they are not aware of any way to observe the difference injected by this PR in stable Rust. (Via nightly, you can create new auto-traits, and then observe the difference being made here.)
* Do we need a lang-team FCP in that context, given that it is only observable in nightly.
* Action Item: Scott to write comment stating that lang team is fine with this change (but leave it I-types-nominated so that the types team retains their chance to weigh in.)
    * Done.

### "inline_const does not evaluate in unused function" rust#106617

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106617

* We have a design meeting coming up on (Static) Analyses that solely apply Post-Monomorphization.
* This seems to fall under that category.
* Tyler to add comments connecting rust#106617 with the relevant design meeting.

### "Stabilize `anonymous_lifetime_in_impl_trait`" rust#107378

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107378

* Josh: maybe scary? At least based on background experience with problems between specialization and lifetime-parameters.
* Tyler: though this is Argument Position Impl Trait (APIT) only, which makes it less scary than if it supported RPIT.
* Josh: Agreed.
* Felix asks whether `'_` and an elided lifetime are always equivalent. Group says they mostly are, apart from lints in some cases
* Scott points out that there were at one time some lints that were erroneous and would erroneously suggest removing explicit-names from lifetimes, and if one were do follow the lint's advice, then you would get broken code due to the limitation described in this issue.
* Scott does not remember what the current status of the aforementioned lints are
* If the lints were never "fixed" to stop emitting the erroneous suggestion, then making this change go through will just magically make everything better (because the suggestion will become correct).
* If the lints were indeed "fixed" to stop emitting the erroneous suggestion, then they need to be "un-fixed" in concert with stabilizing `anonymous_lifetime_in_impl_trait`

### "Tracking issue for RFC 2515, "Permit impl Trait in type aliases"" rust#63063

**Link:** https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/63063

* Issue was nominated to get a summary from Oli. We got that summary (posted separately)
* lcnr has posted comment saying they want to understand how this will work in context of new trait solver before we stabilize TAITs.

## Nominated RFCs, PRs and issues NOT discussed this meeting


## Misc

* Tyler needs an announcement of their joining the lang team
* We need lang-advisors announcement post too, probably
* 

