You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
And truthfully, I don't like the idea of regex compilation depending on unstable features and thus being apt to break arbitrarily. In the most recent case, it seems like it just broke due to an API oversight. And since it's an unstable API, not a lot of attention is paid to quality control on these APIs.
My sense is that there are a number of folks using this trait implementation for one reason or another. In particular, when a breakage does occur, it seems to get reported very quickly. So I wanted to file this issue to hear from folks relying on this. Why are you using unstable APIs instead of just using a Regex directly?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
The `std::str::pattern::Pattern` trait implementation in the `regex`
crate recently broke compilation with the nightly rust toolchain.
The removal of the trait implementation and the corresponding `pattern`
feature is being
[planned](rust-lang/regex#1233).
This PR removes the reliance on this trait implementation.
While the
Pattern
trait sat unchanged for years, it seems that recently, some breaking changes have been landing to it:unstable
feature enabled #1216pattern
feature #1231And truthfully, I don't like the idea of regex compilation depending on unstable features and thus being apt to break arbitrarily. In the most recent case, it seems like it just broke due to an API oversight. And since it's an unstable API, not a lot of attention is paid to quality control on these APIs.
My sense is that there are a number of folks using this trait implementation for one reason or another. In particular, when a breakage does occur, it seems to get reported very quickly. So I wanted to file this issue to hear from folks relying on this. Why are you using unstable APIs instead of just using a
Regex
directly?The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: