bors bca5fdebe0 Auto merge of #131321 - RalfJung:feature-activation, r=nnethercote ... terminology: #[feature] *enables* a feature (instead of "declaring" or "activating" it) Mostly, we currently call a feature that has a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` attribute in the current crate a "declared" feature. I think that is confusing as it does not align with what "declaring" usually means. Furthermore, we *also* refer to `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]` as *declaring* a feature (e.g. in [these diagnostics](f25e5abea2/compiler/rustc_passes/messages.ftl (L297-L301))), which aligns better with what "declaring" usually means. To make things worse, the functions `tcx.features().active(...)` and `tcx.features().declared(...)` both exist and they are doing almost the same thing (testing whether a corresponding `#[feature(name)]` exists) except that `active` would ICE if the feature is not an unstable lang feature. On top of this, the callback when a feature is activated/declared is called `set_enabled`, and many comments also talk about "enabling" a feature. So really, our terminology is just a mess. I would suggest we use "declaring a feature" for saying that something is/was guarded by a feature (e.g. `#[stable]`/`#[unstable]`), and "enabling a feature" for `#[feature(name)]`. This PR implements that.		2024-10-22 11:02:35 +00:00
..
accepted.rs	result_ffi_guarantees stabilizes in $CURRENT_RUSTC_VERSION	2024-10-19 13:01:30 -07:00
builtin_attrs.rs	Single commit implementing the enzyme/autodiff frontend	2024-10-11 19:13:31 +02:00
lib.rs	Reformat using the new identifier sorting from rustfmt	2024-09-22 19:11:29 -04:00
removed.rs	replace placeholder version	2024-10-15 20:13:55 -07:00
tests.rs	tidy: Re-enable check for inline unit tests	2020-12-12 19:18:44 +03:00
unstable.rs	Auto merge of #131321 - RalfJung:feature-activation, r=nnethercote	2024-10-22 11:02:35 +00:00