Sibling articles under this feature previously restated requirements in inconsistent forms.
Crate-to-spec anchors
Platform spec feature
Crate-to-spec anchors
Spec standingStandard
-
This feature hub owns normative MUST/SHOULD contract text for Crate-to-spec anchors.
Context
Decision
This feature hub owns normative MUST/SHOULD contract text. Sibling articles must not redefine hub requirements and should link here for authority.
Consequences
Contract changes start on the hub or in linked ADRs, then propagate to articles and implementation anchors.
Verification anchors
site/website/src/content/docs/platform-spec/compiler/implementation-map/crate-to-spec-anchors/index.mdxarticle bundle under the same feature directory.
-
Platform-spec text supersedes informal crate comments for Crate-to-spec anchors.
Context
Implementation crates accumulated informal notes that diverged from published contracts.
Decision
Normative platform-spec prose and ADRs under this feature supersede informal comments in implementation crates until explicitly migrated into spec text.
Consequences
Engineers file spec/ADR updates when behavior changes; crate comments are non-authoritative for conformance arguments.
Verification anchors
compiler/crates/beskid_analysis/
-
Canonical index from compiler crates to platform-spec features.
Context
Crate references were scattered across hubs without a single ownership surface.
Decision
This feature hub is the canonical map from
compiler/crates/*to platform-spec features; other pages link here instead of duplicating tables.Consequences
New crates require anchor rows before Standard promotion of dependent features.
Verification anchors
- Implementation-map articles and
compiler/Cargo.tomlworkspace layout.
- Implementation-map articles and
- Contracts and edge cases Normative guarantees and known edge cases for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Design model Conceptual model for `Crate-to-spec anchors` and its subsystem boundaries.
- Examples Practical examples that demonstrate `Crate-to-spec anchors` behavior.
- FAQ and troubleshooting Common questions and debugging guidance for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Flow and algorithm End-to-end control flow and major algorithmic steps for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Verification and traceability How `Crate-to-spec anchors` requirements map to tests and implementation anchors.
0 revisions (git unavailable at build; counts may be empty)
No commits recorded for this path.
| Section id | Required | Found |
|---|---|---|
what-this-feature-specifies | yes | yes |
implementation-anchors | yes | yes |
Full tree: run pnpm verify:platform-spec-layout (writes src/generated/platform-spec-layout-report.json).
What this feature specifies
This feature explains how maintainers trace each normative statement to a concrete crate boundary. It is organized into newcomer-friendly articles that move from model, to flow, to contracts, then practical verification and debugging guidance.
Implementation anchors
beskid_analysis-> parser/resolution/semantic leavesbeskid_codegen-> lowering contract leavesbeskid_abiandbeskid_runtime-> execution ABI/runtime leavesbeskid_testsandbeskid_e2e_tests-> conformance leaves
Decisions
Section titled “Decisions”No open decisions. Closed choices are normative ADRs under adr/ (D-COMP-MAP-0001 … D-COMP-MAP-0003); use the reader ADRs tab for expandable detail.
Articles
- Feature hub authorityThis feature hub owns normative MUST/SHOULD contract text for Crate-to-spec anchors.
- Contracts and edge casesNormative guarantees and known edge cases for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Design modelConceptual model for `Crate-to-spec anchors` and its subsystem boundaries.
- ExamplesPractical examples that demonstrate `Crate-to-spec anchors` behavior.
- FAQ and troubleshootingCommon questions and debugging guidance for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Flow and algorithmEnd-to-end control flow and major algorithmic steps for `Crate-to-spec anchors`.
- Verification and traceabilityHow `Crate-to-spec anchors` requirements map to tests and implementation anchors.