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
..
src	Auto merge of #131321 - RalfJung:feature-activation, r=nnethercote	2024-10-22 11:02:35 +00:00
Cargo.toml	Clean up rustc_*/Cargo.toml.	2023-10-30 08:46:02 +11:00