Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
MIR: change "lvalue" terminology to "place". - #46425
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Dec 1, 2017
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
nikomatsakis
commented
Dec 1, 2017
@bors r+ p=1 |
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
📌 Commit 0f7e416 has been approved by |
nikomatsakis
commented
Dec 1, 2017
Giving high priority because bitrot probability is high. |
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #46236) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
eddyb
commented
Dec 1, 2017
@bors r=nikomatsakis |
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
📌 Commit 473f044 has been approved by |
kennytm
commented
Dec 1, 2017
@bors r=15 |
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
📌 Commit 473f044 has been approved by |
kennytm
commented
Dec 1, 2017
oops sorry @bors r=nikomatsakis p=15 |
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
💡 This pull request was already approved, no need to approve it again.
|
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
📌 Commit 473f044 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
MIR: change "lvalue" terminology to "place". As pointed out elsewhere, "lvalue" vs "rvalue" is a misleading/obscure distinction and several other choices have been proposed, the one I prefer being "place" vs "value". This PR only touches the "lvalue" side, and only in MIR-related code, as it's already a lot and could rot.
bors
commented
Dec 1, 2017
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Replace "lvalue" terminology with "place". See #46425 for the previous PR (which only changed MIR-related code). r? @nikomatsakis
As pointed out elsewhere, "lvalue" vs "rvalue" is a misleading/obscure distinction and several other choices have been proposed, the one I prefer being "place" vs "value".
This PR only touches the "lvalue" side, and only in MIR-related code, as it's already a lot and could rot.