| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
Spring cleaning is here! In the Fall! This commit removes quite a large amount
of deprecated functionality from the standard libraries. I tried to ensure that
only old deprecated functionality was removed.
This is removing lots and lots of deprecated features, so this is a breaking
change. Please consult the deprecation messages of the deleted code to see how
to migrate code forward if it still needs migration.
[breaking-change]
|
|
Fallout of #17185.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
