| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
In summary these are some example transitions this change makes:
'a || => ||: 'a
proc:Send() => proc():Send
The intended syntax for closures is to put the lifetime bound not at the front
but rather in the list of bounds. Currently there is no official support in the
AST for bounds that are not 'static, so this case is currently specially handled
in the parser to desugar to what the AST is expecting. Additionally, this moves
the bounds on procedures to the correct position, which is after the argument
list.
The current grammar for closures and procedures is:
procedure := 'proc' [ '<' lifetime-list '>' ] '(' arg-list ')'
[ ':' bound-list ] [ '->' type ]
closure := [ 'unsafe' ] ['<' lifetime-list '>' ] '|' arg-list '|'
[ ':' bound-list ] [ '->' type ]
lifetime-list := lifetime | lifetime ',' lifetime-list
arg-list := ident ':' type | ident ':' type ',' arg-list
bound-list := bound | bound '+' bound-list
bound := path | lifetime
This does not currently handle the << ambiguity in `Option<<'a>||>`, I am
deferring that to a later patch. Additionally, this removes the support for the
obsolete syntaxes of ~fn and &fn.
Closes #10553
Closes #10767
Closes #11209
Closes #11210
Closes #11211
|
|
r=alexcrichton
Fix #13266.
There is a little bit of acrobatics in the definition of `crate_paths`
to avoid calling `clone()` on the dylib/rlib unless we actually are
going to need them.
The other oddity is that I have replaced the `root_ident: Option<&str>`
parameter with a `root: &Option<CratePaths>`, which may surprise one
who was expecting to see something like: `root: Option<&CratePaths>`.
I went with the approach here because I could not come up with code for
the alternative that was acceptable to the borrow checker.
|
|
Add way to print notes with just file:linenum prefix (preserving
integration with source lookup for e.g. vi and emacs) but don't repeat
the other span info.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This also changes some of the download links in the documentation
to 'nightly'.
|
|
This is the final commit need to implement [RFC #4](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/active/0004-private-fields.md), it makes all tuple struct fields private by default, overridable with the `pub` keyword.
I'll note one divergence from the original RFC which is outlined in the first commit.
|
|
Closes #13285 (rustc: Stop using LLVMGetSectionName)
Closes #13280 (std: override clone_from for Vec.)
Closes #13277 (serialize: add a few missing pubs to base64)
Closes #13275 (Add and remove some ignore-win32 flags)
Closes #13273 (Removed managed boxes from libarena.)
Closes #13270 (Minor copy-editing for the tutorial)
Closes #13267 (fix Option<~ZeroSizeType>)
Closes #13265 (Update emacs mode to support new `#![inner(attribute)]` syntax.)
Closes #13263 (syntax: Remove AbiSet, use one Abi)
|
|
|
|
This also changes some of the download links in the documentation
to 'nightly'.
|
|
Merging the 0.10 release into the master branch.
|
|
This change removes the AbiSet from the AST, converting all usage to have just
one Abi value. The current scheme selects a relevant ABI given a list of ABIs
based on the target architecture and how relevant each ABI is to that
architecture.
Instead of this mildly complicated scheme, only one ABI will be allowed in abi
strings, and pseudo-abis will be created for special cases as necessary. For
example the "system" abi exists for stdcall on win32 and C on win64.
Closes #10049
|
|
|
|
this is useful for macros like vec! which construct containers
|
|
This commit deals with the fallout of the previous change by making tuples
structs have public fields where necessary (now that the fields are private by
default).
|
|
This is a continuation of the work done in #13184 to make struct fields private
by default. This commit finishes RFC 4 by making all tuple structs have private
fields by default. Note that enum variants are not affected.
A tuple struct having a private field means that it cannot be matched on in a
pattern match (both refutable and irrefutable), and it also cannot have a value
specified to be constructed. Similarly to private fields, switching the type of
a private field in a tuple struct should be able to be done in a backwards
compatible way.
The one snag that I ran into which wasn't mentioned in the RFC is that this
commit also forbids taking the value of a tuple struct constructor. For example,
this code now fails to compile:
mod a {
pub struct A(int);
}
let a: fn(int) -> a::A = a::A; //~ ERROR: first field is private
Although no fields are bound in this example, it exposes implementation details
through the type itself. For this reason, taking the value of a struct
constructor with private fields is forbidden (outside the containing module).
RFC: 0004-private-fields
|
|
|
|
|
|
These were only free functions on `~[T]` because taking self by-value
used to be broken.
|
|
These were only free functions on `~[T]` because taking self by-value
used to be broken.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Removes all Cell's/RefCell's from lexer::Reader implementations and a couple @.
|
|
|
|
Closes #2569
|
|
This removes the `attr` matcher and adds a `meta` matcher. The previous `attr`
matcher is now ambiguous because it doesn't disambiguate whether it means inner
attribute or outer attribute.
The new behavior can still be achieved by taking an argument of the form
`#[$foo:meta]` (the brackets are part of the macro pattern).
Closes #13067
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Summary:
So far, we've used the term POD "Plain Old Data" to refer to types that
can be safely copied. However, this term is not consistent with the
other built-in bounds that use verbs instead. This patch renames the Pod
kind into Copy.
RFC: 0003-opt-in-builtin-traits
Test Plan: make check
Reviewers: cmr
Differential Revision: http://phabricator.octayn.net/D3
|
|
All of Decoder and Encoder's methods now return a Result.
Encodable.encode() and Decodable.decode() return a Result as well.
fixes #12292
|
|
This is all purely fallout of getting the previous commit to compile.
|
|
The previous syntax was `Foo:Bound<trait-parameters>`, but this is a little
ambiguous because it was being parsed as `Foo: (Bound<trait-parameters)` rather
than `Foo: (Bound) <trait-parameters>`
This commit changes the syntax to `Foo<trait-parameters>: Bound` in order to be
clear where the trait parameters are going.
Closes #9265
|
|
This change prepares `rustc` to accept private fields by default. These changes will have to go through a snapshot before the rest of the changes can happen.
|
|
The previous syntax was `Foo:Bound<trait-parameters>`, but this is a little
ambiguous because it was being parsed as `Foo: (Bound<trait-parameters)` rather
than `Foo: (Bound) <trait-parameters>`
This commit changes the syntax to `Foo<trait-parameters>: Bound` in order to be
clear where the trait parameters are going.
Closes #9265
|
|
Add some docs to ExpnInfo. Add a single overlooked `new_span` call to the folder (I'm pretty sure nothing reads this span, though, so it's probably pointless).
|
|
This change is in preparation for #8122. Nothing is currently done with these
visibility qualifiers, they are just parsed and accepted by the compiler.
RFC: 0004-private-fields
|
|
This was leaving Decls without the new spans; this is a minor change,
since literally nothing reads in the code base reads the span of a Decl
itself, always just its contents.
|
|
|
|
value
|
|
syntax: allow `trace_macros!` and `log_syntax!` in item position.
Previously
trace_macros!(true)
fn main() {}
would complain about `trace_macros` being an expression macro in item
position. This is a pointless limitation, because the macro is purely
compile-time, with no runtime effect. (And similarly for log_syntax.)
This also changes the behaviour of `trace_macros!` very slightly, it
used to be equivalent to
macro_rules! trace_macros {
(true $($_x: tt)*) => { true };
(false $($_x: tt)*) => { false }
}
I.e. you could invoke it with arbitrary trailing arguments, which were
ignored. It is changed to accept only exactly `true` or `false` (with no
trailing arguments) and expands to `()`.
|
|
std: remove the `equals` method from `TotalEq`.
`TotalEq` is now just an assertion about the `Eq` impl of a
type (i.e. `==` is a total equality if a type implements `TotalEq`) so
the extra method is just confusing.
Also, a new method magically appeared as a hack to allow deriving to
assert that the contents of a struct/enum are also TotalEq, because the
deriving infrastructure makes it very hard to do anything but create a
trait method. (You didn't hear about this horrible work-around from me
:(.)
|
|
`TotalEq` is now just an assertion about the `Eq` impl of a
type (i.e. `==` is a total equality if a type implements `TotalEq`) so
the extra method is just confusing.
Also, a new method magically appeared as a hack to allow deriving to
assert that the contents of a struct/enum are also TotalEq, because the
deriving infrastructure makes it very hard to do anything but create a
trait method. (You didn't hear about this horrible work-around from me
:(.)
|
|
|
|
Closes #5283
|
