aboutsummaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
diff options
context:
space:
mode:
authorAleksey Kladov <[email protected]>2017-12-21 19:28:23 +0000
committerAleksey Kladov <[email protected]>2017-12-21 19:28:23 +0000
commitdd233ab3b3f7b91e1a079cba67279659469a54f4 (patch)
treecb9640c77f3511becc8b02e333e66648ace2dc09
parenta63222cd240d9b5405826783603f3b391c90885d (diff)
RFC template
-rw-r--r--rfc.md57
1 files changed, 57 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/rfc.md b/rfc.md
index e69de29bb..c6bc452ce 100644
--- a/rfc.md
+++ b/rfc.md
@@ -0,0 +1,57 @@
1- Feature Name: (fill me in with a unique ident, my_awesome_feature)
2- Start Date: (fill me in with today's date, YYYY-MM-DD)
3- RFC PR: (leave this empty)
4- Rust Issue: (leave this empty)
5
6# Summary
7[summary]: #summary
8
9One para explanation of the feature.
10
11# Motivation
12[motivation]: #motivation
13
14Why are we doing this? What use cases does it support? What is the expected outcome?
15
16# Guide-level explanation
17[guide-level-explanation]: #guide-level-explanation
18
19Explain the proposal as if it was already included in the language and you were teaching it to another Rust programmer. That generally means:
20
21- Introducing new named concepts.
22- Explaining the feature largely in terms of examples.
23- Explaining how Rust programmers should *think* about the feature, and how it should impact the way they use Rust. It should explain the impact as concretely as possible.
24- If applicable, provide sample error messages, deprecation warnings, or migration guidance.
25- If applicable, describe the differences between teaching this to existing Rust programmers and new Rust programmers.
26
27For implementation-oriented RFCs (e.g. for compiler internals), this section should focus on how compiler contributors should think about the change, and give examples of its concrete impact. For policy RFCs, this section should provide an example-driven introduction to the policy, and explain its impact in concrete terms.
28
29# Reference-level explanation
30[reference-level-explanation]: #reference-level-explanation
31
32This is the technical portion of the RFC. Explain the design in sufficient detail that:
33
34- Its interaction with other features is clear.
35- It is reasonably clear how the feature would be implemented.
36- Corner cases are dissected by example.
37
38The section should return to the examples given in the previous section, and explain more fully how the detailed proposal makes those examples work.
39
40# Drawbacks
41[drawbacks]: #drawbacks
42
43Why should we *not* do this?
44
45# Rationale and alternatives
46[alternatives]: #alternatives
47
48- Why is this design the best in the space of possible designs?
49- What other designs have been considered and what is the rationale for not choosing them?
50- What is the impact of not doing this?
51
52# Unresolved questions
53[unresolved]: #unresolved-questions
54
55- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the RFC process before this gets merged?
56- What parts of the design do you expect to resolve through the implementation of this feature before stabilization?
57- What related issues do you consider out of scope for this RFC that could be addressed in the future independently of the solution that comes out of this RFC?