| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
I've totally mangled the history with these rebases; sorry, future programmer!
|
|
(on platforms with 64-bit pointers.)
The StmtMac variant is rather large and also fairly rare, so let's
optimise the common case.
|
|
|
|
Includes a bit of refactoring to store `?` unbounds as bounds with a modifier, rather than in their own world, in the AST at least.
|
|
This breaks code that looks like this:
let x = foo as bar << 13;
Change such code to look like this:
let x = (foo as bar) << 13;
Closes #17362.
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
RFC 248? I think you meant RFC 438.
There ain’t an RFC 248, while 438 looks to be what is being referred to:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0438-precedence-of-plus.md
--------------
Chis Morgan has a pretty important documentation fix in #19385 and he hasn't responded in a while to that pull request so I rebased it for him
Closes #19385
|
|
There ain’t an RFC 248, while 438 looks to be what is being referred to:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0438-precedence-of-plus.md
|
|
|
|
This does NOT break any existing programs because the `[_, ..n]` syntax is also supported.
Part of #19999
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
Fixes #19991.
|
|
|
|
Implement support in the parser for generalized where clauses,
as well as the conversion of ast::WherePredicates to
ty::Predicate in `collect.rs`.
|
|
This does NOT break any existing programs because the `[_, ..n]` syntax is also supported.
|
|
|
|
|
|
followed by a semicolon.
This allows code like `vec![1i, 2, 3].len();` to work.
This breaks code that uses macros as statements without putting
semicolons after them, such as:
fn main() {
...
assert!(a == b)
assert!(c == d)
println(...);
}
It also breaks code that uses macros as items without semicolons:
local_data_key!(foo)
fn main() {
println("hello world")
}
Add semicolons to fix this code. Those two examples can be fixed as
follows:
fn main() {
...
assert!(a == b);
assert!(c == d);
println(...);
}
local_data_key!(foo);
fn main() {
println("hello world")
}
RFC #378.
Closes #18635.
[breaking-change]
|
|
This is to allow us to migrate away from UnUniq in a followup commit,
and thus unify the code paths related to all forms of `box`.
|
|
|
|
results.
|
|
integrating into rustdoc etc.
|
|
|
|
language. Recommend `move||` instead.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
As an example of what this changes, the following code:
```rust
let x: [int ..4];
```
Currently spits out ‘expected `]`, found `..`’. However, a comma would also be valid there, as would a number of other tokens. This change adjusts the parser to produce more accurate errors, so that that example now produces ‘expected one of `(`, `+`, `,`, `::`, or `]`, found `..`’.
(Thanks to cramer on IRC for pointing out this problem with diagnostics.)
|
|
The only other place I know of that doesn’t allow trailing commas is closure types (#19414), and those are a bit tricky to fix (I suspect it might be impossible without infinite lookahead) so I didn’t implement that in this patch. There are other issues surrounding closure type parsing anyway, in particular #19410.
|
|
As an example of what this changes, the following code:
let x: [int ..4];
Currently spits out ‘expected `]`, found `..`’. However, a comma would also be
valid there, as would a number of other tokens. This change adjusts the parser
to produce more accurate errors, so that that example now produces ‘expected one
of `(`, `+`, `,`, `::`, or `]`, found `..`’.
|
|
this allows one to, for example, use #[doc = $macro_var ] in macros.
|
|
No semantic changes, no enabling `if let` where it wasn't already enabled.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This breaks code that looks like this:
trait Foo {
extern "C" unsafe fn foo();
}
impl Foo for Bar {
extern "C" unsafe fn foo() { ... }
}
Change such code to look like this:
trait Foo {
unsafe extern "C" fn foo();
}
impl Foo for Bar {
unsafe extern "C" fn foo() { ... }
}
Fixes #19398.
[breaking-change]
|
|
No semantic changes, no enabling `if let` where it wasn't already enabled.
|
|
|
|
Sister pull request of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/19288, but
for the other style of block doc comment.
|
|
appropriately.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This breaks code like
```
let t = (42i, 42i);
... t.0::<int> ...;
```
Change this code to not contain an unused type parameter. For example:
```
let t = (42i, 42i);
... t.0 ...;
```
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19096
[breaking-change]
|
|
r=acrichto
Use the expected type to infer the argument/return types of unboxed closures. Also, in `||` expressions, use the expected type to decide if the result should be a boxed or unboxed closure (and if an unboxed closure, what kind).
This supercedes PR #19089, which was already reviewed by @pcwalton.
|
|
Futureproof Rust for fancier suffixed literals. The Rust compiler tokenises a literal followed immediately (no whitespace) by an identifier as a single token: (for example) the text sequences `"foo"bar`, `1baz` and `1u1024` are now a single token rather than the pairs `"foo"` `bar`, `1` `baz` and `1u` `1024` respectively.
The compiler rejects all such suffixes in the parser, except for the 12 numeric suffixes we have now.
I'm fairly sure this will affect very few programs, since it's not currently legal to have `<literal><identifier>` in a Rust program, except in a macro invocation. Any macro invocation relying on this behaviour can simply separate the two tokens with whitespace: `foo!("bar"baz)` becomes `foo!("bar" baz)`.
This implements [RFC 463](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0463-future-proof-literal-suffixes.md), and so closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19088.
|
|
optional unboxed closure kind.
|
|
This moves errors and all handling of numeric suffixes into the parser
rather than the lexer.
|
|
This adds an optional suffix at the end of a literal token:
`"foo"bar`. An actual use of a suffix in a expression (or other literal
that the compiler reads) is rejected in the parser.
This doesn't switch the handling of numbers to this system, and doesn't
outlaw illegal suffixes for them yet.
|
|
|
|
|
