Suggest std::sync::LazyLock instead of once_cell::sync::Lazy
#1235
Conversation
|
thx!! Do we really want to mention 3rd party crates when the exact same functionality is available in stdlib? |
README.md
Outdated
| they're used from inside a helper function. Instead, we recommend using | ||
| [`std::sync::LazyLock`] stabilized in [Rust 1.80], the [`once_cell`] crate, or | ||
| the [`lazy_static`] crate to ensure that regular expressions are compiled | ||
| exactly once. For example: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a reason not to just use the LazyLock option? As a user without much idea on the history, it would be nice if there was just one standard and recommended option, the stdlib one.
Also the one that clippy recommends: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#non_std_lazy_statics
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@gibfahn
Thanks for your comment.
As regex and once_cell can be used with no_std where std::sync::LazyLock is not available, I thought it would be a good idea to leave mention of once_cell.
Since I have not tried it, if I am wrong please let me know.
|
I found this PR (eventually) because clippy now has a pedantic lint against lazy_static: https://rust-lang.github.io/rust-clippy/master/index.html#non_std_lazy_statics Would be nice to get this landed so it's easy for folks who see that lint to update. |
This comment was marked as spam.
This comment was marked as spam.
Sorry, something went wrong.
This seems fine now given that `LazyLock` has been stabilized for quite some time. Closes rust-lang#1217, PR rust-lang#1235
BurntSushi
force-pushed
the
feat/switch_once_cell_suggestion_to_lazy_lock
branch
from
b9637b9 to
b80e391
Compare
This PR suggests
std::sync::LazyLockinstead ofonce_cell::sync::Lazy.This issue was discussed three months ago right after the stabilization of
std::sync::LazyLockin Rust 1.80,and since two more minor versions of Rust have been released since then,
I think it's about time.
Many thanks,
Closes #1217