From 6210353dfedfa7a8c973400717142be3d9a3eb0b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: josh11b Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2022 16:46:19 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Update links to open discussion minutes archives (#1873) --- docs/design/classes.md | 2 +- .../p0818/regular_equivalence_classes.md | 4 +-- proposals/p0920.md | 2 +- proposals/p0950.md | 4 +-- proposals/p0981.md | 2 +- proposals/p0983.md | 2 +- proposals/p1084.md | 6 ++-- proposals/p1144.md | 4 +-- proposals/p1154.md | 28 +++++++++---------- 9 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 27 deletions(-) diff --git a/docs/design/classes.md b/docs/design/classes.md index f1d2fdd35d79..c28429fc801b 100644 --- a/docs/design/classes.md +++ b/docs/design/classes.md @@ -1863,7 +1863,7 @@ There are some opportunities to improve on and simplify the C++ story: aren't friends of the base class. **References:** This was discussed in -[the open discussion on 2021-07-12](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QCdKQ33rki-kCDrxi8UHy3a36dtW0WdMqpUzluGSrz4/edit?resourcekey=0-bZmNUiueOiH_sysJNqnT9A#heading=h.40jlsrcgp8mr). +[the open discussion on 2021-07-12](https://docs.google.com/document/d/14vAcURDKeH6LZ_TQCMRGpNJrXSZCACQqDy29YH19XGo/edit#heading=h.40jlsrcgp8mr). #### Interop with C++ inheritance diff --git a/proposals/p0818/regular_equivalence_classes.md b/proposals/p0818/regular_equivalence_classes.md index 0e21dab83108..2daff2174fd9 100644 --- a/proposals/p0818/regular_equivalence_classes.md +++ b/proposals/p0818/regular_equivalence_classes.md @@ -221,6 +221,6 @@ endlessly. See these notes from discussions: - [Regular equivalence classes 2021-09-23](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1iyL7ZDfWT6ZmDSz6Fp8MrLcl5nOQc4ItQbeL3QlVXYU/edit#) -- [Carbon minutes (rolling): Open discussions: 2021-09-27](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.qh4b1gy7o5el) -- [Carbon minutes (rolling): Open discussions: 2021-09-28](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.9a1r39mla9ho) +- [Carbon minutes (rolling): Open discussions: 2021-09-27](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.qh4b1gy7o5el) +- [Carbon minutes (rolling): Open discussions: 2021-09-28](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.9a1r39mla9ho) - [Regular equivalence classes 2 2021-10-01](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1xGDRSV6q534-CoDZnzuZJmzhty2yPki2ZfDDPLSHYek/edit#) diff --git a/proposals/p0920.md b/proposals/p0920.md index fac93c202862..dd4633c5abe4 100644 --- a/proposals/p0920.md +++ b/proposals/p0920.md @@ -354,5 +354,5 @@ deduced? In particular we were worried about evolution, and allowing users to add functions to an interface as long as they had defaults. These problems were discussed in -[2021-12-08 open discussion](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.njnqpdcjp5h0). +[2021-12-08 open discussion](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.njnqpdcjp5h0). We concluded that we will later find other mechanisms to support this use case. diff --git a/proposals/p0950.md b/proposals/p0950.md index 80fcb8cc9be9..d0f54a6b1564 100644 --- a/proposals/p0950.md +++ b/proposals/p0950.md @@ -96,8 +96,8 @@ This design was the conclusion of a number of discussions and proposals: [Member lookup in generic and non-generic contexts](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1-vw39x5YARpUZ0uD2xmKepLEKG7_u122CUJ67hNz3hk/edit#) - Nov 4, 2021 document by `josh11b` and `mconst` titled [Carbon: facets exposed from generics](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1C1eIzd6JY0ooE1rDjW1vx7e3i7sgGugCA9bPMRhwWM0/edit#) -- [Open discussion on 2021-11-08](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.ec285oam2okw) -- [Open discussion 2021-11-11](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.8vuatm82d1mk) +- [Open discussion on 2021-11-08](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.ec285oam2okw) +- [Open discussion 2021-11-11](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.8vuatm82d1mk) The main alternatives we evaluated are summarized below. diff --git a/proposals/p0981.md b/proposals/p0981.md index e2688c18a928..660c2b8e2e42 100644 --- a/proposals/p0981.md +++ b/proposals/p0981.md @@ -74,7 +74,7 @@ This proposal advances Carbon's goals: Alternatives were considered in: - [question-for-leads issue #710: Default comparison for data classes](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/710) -- [open discussion on 2021-11-29](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.6komy889g3hc) +- [open discussion on 2021-11-29](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.6komy889g3hc) ### Field order is not significant diff --git a/proposals/p0983.md b/proposals/p0983.md index a6b5408783b8..3771e799aaa2 100644 --- a/proposals/p0983.md +++ b/proposals/p0983.md @@ -164,5 +164,5 @@ as we determined there was a need for the greater expressivity of being able to mark individual items as `final`. This discussion occurred in: - [Document examining an extended example using specialization](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w-kRC338Jc1ibTu7Vf0pOlGKdrpumfz63bzUIxEj9jY/edit) -- [2021-11-29 open discussion](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.6komy889g3hc) +- [2021-11-29 open discussion](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.6komy889g3hc) - [Carbon's #typesystem channel on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/708431657849585705/910681126236987495) diff --git a/proposals/p1084.md b/proposals/p1084.md index c1922a51e719..1723a5bcdcc7 100644 --- a/proposals/p1084.md +++ b/proposals/p1084.md @@ -193,7 +193,7 @@ some experience with it. ### Allow function bodies using incomplete interfaces We -[considered](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.oqmpxtubjmkm) +[considered](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.oqmpxtubjmkm) allowing a function definition to use an incomplete interface. One concern was whether the criteria for when the function body depended on something in the interface's definition would be too subtle for developers to reason about. We @@ -216,7 +216,7 @@ declarations for a few reasons: expect to associate with a function. This was discussed in -[open discussion on 2022-03-14](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.oqmpxtubjmkm) +[open discussion on 2022-03-14](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.oqmpxtubjmkm) and [question-for-leads issue #1132](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/issues/1132). @@ -228,6 +228,6 @@ to deduced parameters for consistency. We may in the future allow some rewrites between equivalent expressions, such as between `Vector(T:! Type)` and `[T:! Type] Vector(T)`, but for now we are starting with the more restrictive rule. This was discussed in -[open discussion on 2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.w4zgqvarhnbn) +[open discussion on 2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.w4zgqvarhnbn) and in [#syntax channel on Discord](https://discord.com/channels/655572317891461132/709488742942900284/953798170750615622). diff --git a/proposals/p1144.md b/proposals/p1144.md index dd2c3cb1774b..f16e9c3ebd3d 100644 --- a/proposals/p1144.md +++ b/proposals/p1144.md @@ -124,7 +124,7 @@ motivate changes in the future, is to prioritize the different implementations generated by the `like` shortcut separately in `match_first` blocks. This was discussed in -[open discussion on 2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#). +[open discussion on 2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#). ### Where are the impl definitions from `like` generated? @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ This was discussed in ### Support marking interfaces or their members as `external` We -[discussed on 2022-03-28](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.sk06n1ggoa3o) +[discussed on 2022-03-28](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.sk06n1ggoa3o) the idea that operator interfaces might be marked `external`. This would either mean that types would only be able to implement them using `external impl` or that even if they were implemented internally, they would not add the names of diff --git a/proposals/p1154.md b/proposals/p1154.md index 3c32008a4cdf..1da9fba705c1 100644 --- a/proposals/p1154.md +++ b/proposals/p1154.md @@ -51,13 +51,13 @@ Destructors interact with inheritance, which was introduced in proposal Destructors were discussed in open discussion on these dates: -- [2021-07-12](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QCdKQ33rki-kCDrxi8UHy3a36dtW0WdMqpUzluGSrz4/edit?resourcekey=0-bZmNUiueOiH_sysJNqnT9A#heading=h.40jlsrcgp8mr) -- [2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam) -- [2021-10-04](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.a0rffns9r10n) +- [2021-07-12](https://docs.google.com/document/d/14vAcURDKeH6LZ_TQCMRGpNJrXSZCACQqDy29YH19XGo/edit#heading=h.40jlsrcgp8mr) +- [2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam) +- [2021-10-04](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.a0rffns9r10n) discussed not all types being destructible, and that some types are `TriviallyDestructible` -- [2021-10-18](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.uz59mgk5ezch) -- [2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.cy8m79pgct1v) +- [2021-10-18](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.uz59mgk5ezch) +- [2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.cy8m79pgct1v) As part of [proposal 777: Inheritance](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/777), @@ -109,11 +109,11 @@ downsides that we ultimately decided were too large: type-of-types were implemented. This was considered in the open discussions on -[2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam) +[2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam) and -[2021-10-18](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.uz59mgk5ezch). +[2021-10-18](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.uz59mgk5ezch). We decided to go with the proposed approach in -[the open discussion on 2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.cy8m79pgct1v). +[the open discussion on 2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.cy8m79pgct1v). ### Prevent virtual function calls in destructors @@ -137,13 +137,13 @@ transitively calls. We would consider this as a potential future extension. As noted in the design, this could be achieved by using the `partial` type. This was considered in the open discussions on -[2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam) +[2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam) and -[2021-10-18](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.uz59mgk5ezch). +[2021-10-18](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.uz59mgk5ezch). ### Allow functions to act as destructors -[We considered, on 2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam), +[We considered, on 2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam), how we might support returning a value, for example a failure, from a destructor. This would require that the destructor be called explicitly, rather than implicitly as part of a `Allocator.Delete()` call or a variable leaving @@ -183,7 +183,7 @@ is particularly concerning if whether a type implements a constraint depends on which function is the enclosing scope. This was considered in the -[open discussion on 2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/105GsfmxOwcZ_iHkCXFnALB7e-_R3IgMpGKfeT84h1mc/edit?resourcekey=0-h3uVHObsJwChVg1MdaWfKQ#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam). +[open discussion on 2021-08-30](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YhwNKLxQsWf8NPVaRm9PvgPmSM3PIK_KlD1gpNuUfwY/edit#heading=h.4dobu6v1cdam). ### Allow multiple conditional destructors @@ -270,7 +270,7 @@ does not have a virtual destructor, but may be pointing to a derived value. We as part of [proposal 777: Inheritance](https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/pull/777). We decided to go with the proposed approach in -[the open discussion on 2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cRrhRrmaUf2hVi2lFcHsYo2j0jI6t9RGZoYjWhRxp14/edit?resourcekey=0-xWHBEZ8zIqnJiB4yfBSLfA#heading=h.cy8m79pgct1v). +[the open discussion on 2022-03-24](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1UelNaT_j61G8rYp6qQZ-biRddTuGcxJtqXxrVbjB9rA/edit#heading=h.cy8m79pgct1v). #### Don't distinguish safe and unsafe delete operations @@ -299,7 +299,7 @@ This option was considered in the #### Allow final destructors One option we -[considered early on](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1QCdKQ33rki-kCDrxi8UHy3a36dtW0WdMqpUzluGSrz4/edit?resourcekey=0-bZmNUiueOiH_sysJNqnT9A#heading=h.40jlsrcgp8mr) +[considered early on](https://docs.google.com/document/d/14vAcURDKeH6LZ_TQCMRGpNJrXSZCACQqDy29YH19XGo/edit#heading=h.40jlsrcgp8mr) for extensible classes with non-virtual destructors, was to require the same thing we do from non-virtual methods. That is, require that the implementation in the base class is appropriate for derived classes. We ultimately decided on a