https://github.com/rust-lang/rust http://git.dreamy.place/mirrors/rust/atom?h=try 2016-02-24T23:40:39+00:00 2016-02-24T23:40:39+00:00 Niko Matsakis niko@alum.mit.edu 2016-02-18T10:21:15+00:00 urn:sha1:6660ad6f8df0fcbe5120093ec63e0a3e81a54327 as a test. 2015-04-01T15:22:39+00:00 Niko Matsakis niko@alum.mit.edu 2015-03-30T13:38:27+00:00 urn:sha1:890ed5c46847fa544278c18fd46c1bdfe2809c09 2015-01-25T16:20:38+00:00 Jorge Aparicio japaricious@gmail.com 2015-01-24T21:36:30+00:00 urn:sha1:bff462302b3e0a8f68c14cad2806c7ff5005364e 2015-01-08T16:02:24+00:00 Huon Wilson dbau.pp+github@gmail.com 2015-01-08T10:54:35+00:00 urn:sha1:0c70ce1424f380360dcc8d857c68d2df1a27b6fd 2014-12-08T18:47:44+00:00 Niko Matsakis niko@alum.mit.edu 2014-12-06T01:01:33+00:00 urn:sha1:096a28607fb80c91e6e2ca64d9ef44c4e550e96c This change makes the compiler no longer infer whether types (structures and enumerations) implement the `Copy` trait (and thus are implicitly copyable). Rather, you must implement `Copy` yourself via `impl Copy for MyType {}`. A new warning has been added, `missing_copy_implementations`, to warn you if a non-generic public type has been added that could have implemented `Copy` but didn't. For convenience, you may *temporarily* opt out of this behavior by using `#![feature(opt_out_copy)]`. Note though that this feature gate will never be accepted and will be removed by the time that 1.0 is released, so you should transition your code away from using it. This breaks code like: #[deriving(Show)] struct Point2D { x: int, y: int, } fn main() { let mypoint = Point2D { x: 1, y: 1, }; let otherpoint = mypoint; println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint); } Change this code to: #[deriving(Show)] struct Point2D { x: int, y: int, } impl Copy for Point2D {} fn main() { let mypoint = Point2D { x: 1, y: 1, }; let otherpoint = mypoint; println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint); } This is the backwards-incompatible part of #13231. Part of RFC #3. [breaking-change] 2014-10-29T15:43:07+00:00 Steve Klabnik steve@steveklabnik.com 2014-10-09T19:17:22+00:00 urn:sha1:7828c3dd2858d8f3a0448484d8093e22719dbda0 https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change] 2013-10-22T15:09:56+00:00 Alex Crichton alex@alexcrichton.com 2013-10-21T20:08:31+00:00 urn:sha1:daf5f5a4d10513ff42e79fa7ef8819b170f3a13d Who doesn't like a massive renaming? 2013-10-01T06:21:20+00:00 Alex Crichton alex@alexcrichton.com 2013-09-30T03:06:21+00:00 urn:sha1:ebf5f406ef6e291655ec9eca5aa8bd95775cc67c 2013-04-30T10:59:32+00:00 Niko Matsakis niko@alum.mit.edu 2013-03-15T19:24:24+00:00 urn:sha1:a896440ca1b93cc5dc6edd827ea2ae89602bfa9e 2013-02-14T21:09:09+00:00 Nick Desaulniers ndesaulniers@mozilla.com 2013-02-14T21:09:09+00:00 urn:sha1:4699ac67c6b48331852f3960430a3c8cfcaf7b90