Tracking Issue for `ops::Yeet` (`feature(try_trait_v2_yeet)`) #96374

scottmcm · 2022-04-25T00:34:14Z

Feature gate: #![feature(try_trait_v2_yeet)]

This is a tracking issue for standard library additions related to #96373, which for now means the ops::Yeet struct and related impls.

It currently exists experimentally. Per the lang process, this cannot go further than experimenting without an approved RFC -- and will certainly not stabilize under the name Yeet. Please try this out and give experience reports, but be aware that it may well change drastically or be removed entirely.

Public API

// core::ops
pub struct Yeet<E>(pub E);

impl<T> ops::FromResidual<ops::Yeet<()>> for Option<T>;
impl<T, E, F: From<E>> ops::FromResidual<ops::Yeet<E>> for Result<T, F>;

Steps / History

Implementation: Add do yeet expressions to allow experimentation in nightly #96376
Final comment period (FCP)
Stabilization PR

Unresolved Questions

The name, of course.

The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:

Add `do yeet` expressions to allow experimentation in nightly Two main goals for this: - Ensure that trait restructuring in rust-lang#84277 (comment) doesn't accidentally close us off from the possibility of doing this in future, as sketched in https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3058-try-trait-v2.html#possibilities-for-yeet - Experiment with the *existence* of syntax for this, to be able to weight the syntax-vs-library tradeoffs better than we can right now. Notably the syntax (with `do`) and name in this PR are not intended as candidates for stabilization, but they make a good v0 PR for adding this with minimal impact to compiler maintenance or priming one possible name choice over another. r? `@oli-obk` The lang `second` for doing this: rust-lang/lang-team#160 (comment) Tracking issues - Lang, rust-lang#96373 - Libs-api, rust-lang#96374

VixieTSQ · 2022-06-17T02:16:33Z

As much as I love the name yeet, and I would not be mad if it gets stabilized as yeet, the name should probably be throw, or if we must be different then the anyhow crate already has a cool name: bail. In that case I'm not sure what the catch counterpart would be named. But those are the two names I'm putting on the table.

AndyGozas · 2022-06-30T20:33:01Z

I really don't think that the name should be any different from what it is in most other languages. If throw is changed to yeet then the only next step would be to use yoink instead of catch when that keyword comes up, but naming more and more things with what's essentially slang terms, raises the entry bar for the Rust language, especially for those who don't use English as their first language. Words like throw and catch are already known by many developers, and are simple enough even for those who are minimally experienced in English.

heavyrain266 · 2022-07-03T16:27:26Z

The word yeet surely looks "funny", but please be real because if we don't want some mainstream keywords like throw, what about toss? You can say "Hey, rustc toss an error here.", which sounds natural.

Personally, using slang words in programming language feels really unprofessional. Perhaps it makes sense to be used in some esolangs but not in the language used by mostly mature (as in age) community and big tech companies such as Mozilla, Twitter, Google, Microsoft and others.

TheRawMeatball · 2022-07-03T17:03:06Z

I think it should be either yeet or throw. If we're going to do something fun (which I'd personally support) it should be yeet given the community support it already has, and if not, we should stick to what is already pretty much the standard and go with throw.

dnsco · 2022-07-03T18:18:10Z

"Yeet" was chosen as a placeholder name to prevent bike-shedding and make room for implementation unhindered.

My understanding is that there will be a time to voice what you think the keyword should be, but for now, let's yeet those lines of inquiry.

VixieTSQ · 2022-07-03T20:10:54Z

"Yeet" was chosen as a placeholder name to prevent bike-shedding and make room for implementation unhindered.

And yet there appears to be a lot of bike-shedding.. I think it backfired...

Shfty · 2022-07-04T00:49:24Z

"Yeet" was chosen as a placeholder name to prevent bike-shedding and make room for implementation unhindered.

With the unfortunate side-effect of planting a highly noticeable name - and accompanying link to this issue - in the std::ops documentation, which practically begs the reader to click on it and ask why on earth meme-tier keywords are appearing in experimental.

It's reassuring to see "at the very least it will not stabilize under the name Yeet" in the description, but it's an unnecessary distraction from whatever promped the aforementioned docs.rs browsing to begin with.

dpc · 2022-07-04T03:40:04Z

"Yeet" was chosen as a placeholder name to prevent bike-shedding and make room for implementation unhindered.

I think it was chosen, so work can be done before bikesheding ends. Bikesheding itself is unavoidable.

toadslop · 2022-09-12T22:11:45Z

"Yeet" was chosen as a placeholder name to prevent bike-shedding and make room for implementation unhindered.

I think what was meant was that the author didn't want to bikeshed, so it was named the first thing that came to mind. Perhaps the thought that giving it that name would mean that the main thing someone who doesn't know much about the implementation or what it's for would be able to do nothing but bike-shed the name. And would happily do so.

Add `do yeet` expressions to allow experimentation in nightly Two main goals for this: - Ensure that trait restructuring in rust-lang/rust#84277 (comment) doesn't accidentally close us off from the possibility of doing this in future, as sketched in https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3058-try-trait-v2.html#possibilities-for-yeet - Experiment with the *existence* of syntax for this, to be able to weight the syntax-vs-library tradeoffs better than we can right now. Notably the syntax (with `do`) and name in this PR are not intended as candidates for stabilization, but they make a good v0 PR for adding this with minimal impact to compiler maintenance or priming one possible name choice over another. r? `@oli-obk` The lang `second` for doing this: rust-lang/lang-team#160 (comment) Tracking issues - Lang, rust-lang/rust#96373 - Libs-api, rust-lang/rust#96374

yoshiyahoo · 2022-12-02T06:23:51Z

I'm not sure about this being a feature. The question mark operator signals the intent to return well enough, and while using the Err variant is more verbose, I think it's a decent enough way to handle errors. If this feature was to ever be added however, I would use the yeet keyword since it's more fun.

nyabinary · 2023-11-26T03:16:52Z

When are we stabilizing the yeet keyword :P

scottmcm added T-libs-api Relevant to the library API team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. C-tracking-issue Category: A tracking issue for an RFC or an unstable feature. labels Apr 25, 2022

This was referenced Apr 25, 2022

Tracking Issue for experimental yeet expressions (feature(yeet_expr)) #96373

Open

Add do yeet expressions to allow experimentation in nightly #96376

Merged

SabrinaJewson mentioned this issue Apr 25, 2022

Document PR 96376 jakevossen5/areweyeetyet.rs#3

Merged

This comment was marked as spam.

Sign in to view

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Tracking Issue for `ops::Yeet` (`feature(try_trait_v2_yeet)`) #96374

Tracking Issue for `ops::Yeet` (`feature(try_trait_v2_yeet)`) #96374

scottmcm commented Apr 25, 2022 •

edited

Loading

This comment was marked as spam.

VixieTSQ commented Jun 17, 2022

AndyGozas commented Jun 30, 2022

heavyrain266 commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading

TheRawMeatball commented Jul 3, 2022

dnsco commented Jul 3, 2022

VixieTSQ commented Jul 3, 2022

Shfty commented Jul 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading

dpc commented Jul 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading

toadslop commented Sep 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

yoshiyahoo commented Dec 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading

nyabinary commented Nov 26, 2023

This comment was marked as spam.

Tracking Issue for ops::Yeet (feature(try_trait_v2_yeet)) #96374

Tracking Issue for ops::Yeet (feature(try_trait_v2_yeet)) #96374

Comments

scottmcm commented Apr 25, 2022 • edited Loading

Public API

Steps / History

Unresolved Questions

This comment was marked as spam.

VixieTSQ commented Jun 17, 2022

AndyGozas commented Jun 30, 2022

heavyrain266 commented Jul 3, 2022 • edited Loading

TheRawMeatball commented Jul 3, 2022

dnsco commented Jul 3, 2022

VixieTSQ commented Jul 3, 2022

Shfty commented Jul 4, 2022 • edited Loading

dpc commented Jul 4, 2022 • edited Loading

toadslop commented Sep 12, 2022 • edited Loading

yoshiyahoo commented Dec 2, 2022 • edited Loading

nyabinary commented Nov 26, 2023

This comment was marked as spam.

Tracking Issue for `ops::Yeet` (`feature(try_trait_v2_yeet)`) #96374

Tracking Issue for `ops::Yeet` (`feature(try_trait_v2_yeet)`) #96374

scottmcm commented Apr 25, 2022 •

edited

Loading

heavyrain266 commented Jul 3, 2022 •

edited

Loading

Shfty commented Jul 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading

dpc commented Jul 4, 2022 •

edited

Loading

toadslop commented Sep 12, 2022 •

edited

Loading

yoshiyahoo commented Dec 2, 2022 •

edited

Loading