![]() Here is an item where cargo fix applies the suggestion properly. here is the suggestion that motivated that this field be added in the first place, and yet cargo fix exits with an error when it tries and invariably fails to apply this suggestion. The problem is that documentation of this field is so nonexistent that even in the rare places where it's being used, it's being used incorrectly: e.g. # has both a mandatory reason field, which is shown to the user in warning messages, and an optional suggestion field, which seems like it is intended for machine consumption via cargo fix and the like. Would it make sense to have this redirection be a part of the rustc_deprecated attribute itself? It seems likely that the replacement is mentioned in the human text of the deprecation making that machine accessible could be nice.Īctually, this might already be supported, to a degree. An exhaustive list of items that have been deprecated since before the Rust 2018 edition that would be subject to these policies for the Rust 2021 edition.Ī working implementation of the technical aspects of this proposal can be found here.Ī policy of employing Rustdoc aliases to explicitly redirect users of deprecated items to their replacements in Rustdoc search results. ![]() A policy of employing Rustdoc aliases to explicitly redirect users of deprecated items to their replacements in Rustdoc search results.A policy of additionally marking such items as #, thereby removing them from the generated documentation.A policy of applying this mechanism to items that have previously been deprecated for at least one full edition cycle.A mechanism by which selected deprecated items in the Rust standard library can have their lint level upgraded from "warn" to "deny" based on the Rust edition that the user has selected.However, with the aid of the edition mechanism, the use of a deprecated item can be made into a compile-time error, thereby allowing such items to be "removed" from the standard library in a way that remains fully edition-compatible. Despite their undesirability, these deprecated items can never be outright removed from the standard library, in keeping with Rust's stability guarantee. I could give it a belt and suspenders as suggested, but I'd rather not if I don't have to.The Rust standard library contains many items marked as "deprecated", implying that users should avoid using them in favor of alternatives. I would appreciate a few more readings on the channel that does not bear on the pilaster. I'm through-bolting at 3" from the top and bottom, staggered at about 14" on center. ![]() The tie beam has 1#5 at 1 1/2" from the bottom as mentioned, so I reasonably assume there is at least the same thing top. of course the unseen footing is also an unknown, but it doesn't take much of a footing to support 16 kips of so. It ought to be able to work even unreinforced, even with some bending, being only 10'-8" tall. Even if there are no vertical bars, it at least has to be filled solid (I will "ping" it to make sure). There's really no reasonable way to determine the pilaster reinforcing. The section to be removed is on the far right, and it's an interior wall. I want to make sure it's properly bonded together, and not just 8"x8" and 8"x16" blocks with a collar joint bonding it to a continuous 8" wall. I'll be doing a site visit to find out as much about the construction of the pilaster as possible. RE: Removal Of CMU Wall mike20793 (Structural) 2 Mar 15 18:09 However, it bothers me that the thing I'm supporting (tie beam) is being used to support the reinforcing member itself. I figure if I through-bolt the channel to the tie beam at the pilaster with enough fasteners, then the channel's end reaction will be transferred to the pilaster through the tie beam. I don't think I can get a strong enough seat under the unsupported channel. Problem is, since the pilaster flushes to one side of the wall, one of the channels is not able to bear on the pilaster. They would like to remove one section of wall between pilasters by retaining the tie beam, and through-bolting steel reinforcing channels each side of the tie beam. The 8" wall is capped with an 8"x12" poured concrete tie beam, and there are 16"x16" pilasters in the wall at 20' on center. I have been tasked with designing the removal of a load bearing CMU wall.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |