Stabilize core::io::{Error(Kind), IoSlice(Mut), Result}

[bushrat011899]

View all comments

Tracking Issue: #154046
Stabilization Report: #154046 (comment)
Blocked On: #160952

Description

This PR stabilizes a subset of the core_io feature, namely:

• core::io (the module)
• core::io::Error
• core::io::ErrorKind
• core::io::Result
• core::io::IoSlice
• core::io::IoSliceMut

To minimize churn, I've opted to mark the above as stable under a new feature, core_io_fundamentals, leaving the unstable parts under the existing core_io feature. This PR does not propose stabilization alloc_io, or re-exports of core::io in alloc::io. That will be proposed at a later date for ease of review. I will note that I plan on submitted a stabilization PR for alloc_io in its entirety in the future as context for reviewers here though.

---

Notes

• No AI tooling of any kind was used during the creation of this PR.

[rustbot]

r? @JohnTitor

rustbot has assigned @JohnTitor.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

Why was this reviewer chosen?

The reviewer was selected based on:

• Owners of files modified in this PR: libs
• libs expanded to 12 candidates
• Random selection from JohnTitor, Mark-Simulacrum, clarfonthey, nia-e

[bushrat011899]

@rustbot label +I-libs-api-nominated
@rust-lang/libs-api & @nia-e (not sure if the team ping works so hedging my bets)

[rustbot]

Error: relabel handler unexpectedly failed in this comment: failed to add labels to the issue

Please file an issue on GitHub at triagebot if there's a problem with this bot, or reach out on #triagebot on Zulip.

[bushrat011899]

CI failure caused by a doc(hidden) trait implementation not having a stability attribute becoming an error once the core::io module was marked stable. I'm not sure why it was ok before and not ok now, but I've added the relevant unstable attribute anyway.

[rustbot]

This PR was rebased onto a different main commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed.

Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers.