-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.8k
duplicate_macro_exports lint says it will be a hard error in 2018 but it is still a lint #61221
Copy link
Copy link
Closed
Labels
A-edition-2018Area: The 2018 editionArea: The 2018 editionA-lintsArea: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut.Area: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut.A-macrosArea: All kinds of macros (custom derive, macro_rules!, proc macros, ..)Area: All kinds of macros (custom derive, macro_rules!, proc macros, ..)C-bugCategory: This is a bug.Category: This is a bug.T-compilerRelevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Metadata
Metadata
Assignees
Labels
A-edition-2018Area: The 2018 editionArea: The 2018 editionA-lintsArea: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut.Area: Lints (warnings about flaws in source code) such as unused_mut.A-macrosArea: All kinds of macros (custom derive, macro_rules!, proc macros, ..)Area: All kinds of macros (custom derive, macro_rules!, proc macros, ..)C-bugCategory: This is a bug.Category: This is a bug.T-compilerRelevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Type
Fields
Give feedbackNo fields configured for issues without a type.
duplicate_macro_exportsis marked as a future incompatible lint. However, it was never made a hard error, so in 2018 you still get the note:and points to a closed issue.
If I am understanding the terminology correctly, there is a difference between a "hard error" and a "deny by default lint" where a hard error cannot be disabled, correct?
AFAIK, this is the only future incompatible lint (with a specified edition) that does not have a hard error implemented.
I'm not sure if this is intentional or tracked anywhere (I can't find any). It's a minor pedantic issue, since it is deny-by-default, it seems unlikely to be a problem. I'm not sure if it should be left as-is, make it a hard error in 2018, or remove the edition from the future note.
cc @petrochenkov