| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
I searched for times when we were hiding functions with # in the documentation,
and fixed them to not use it unless neccesary.
I also made random improvements whenever I changed something. For example,
I changed Example to Examples, for consistency.
Fixes #13423
|
|
|
|
No in-tree users. Ugly interface. Closes #14332.
|
|
This gets rid of the 'experimental' level, removes the non-staged_api
case (i.e. stability levels for out-of-tree crates), and lets the
staged_api attributes use 'unstable' and 'deprecated' lints.
This makes the transition period to the full feature staging design
a bit nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sister pull request of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/19288, but
for the other style of block doc comment.
|
|
This is considered good convention.
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Libcore's test infrastructure is complicated by the fact that many lang
items are defined in the crate. The current approach (realcore/realstd
imports) is hacky and hard to work with (tests inside of core::cmp
haven't been run for months!).
Moving tests to a separate crate does mean that they can only test the
public API of libcore, but I don't feel that that is too much of an
issue. The only tests that I had to get rid of were some checking the
various numeric formatters, but those are also exercised through normal
format! calls in other tests.
|
|
This breaks a fair amount of code. The typical patterns are:
* `for _ in range(0, 10)`: change to `for _ in range(0u, 10)`;
* `println!("{}", 3)`: change to `println!("{}", 3i)`;
* `[1, 2, 3].len()`: change to `[1i, 2, 3].len()`.
RFC #30. Closes #6023.
[breaking-change]
|
|
[breaking-change]
|
|
This mostly involved frobbing imports between realstd, realcore, and the core
being test. Some of the imports are a little counterintuitive, but it mainly
focuses around libcore's types not implementing Show while libstd's types
implement Show.
|
|
|
|
|
