| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
This also inverts the dependency between libserialize and libcollections.
cc #8784
|
|
This commit removes deriving(ToStr) in favor of deriving(Show), migrating all impls of ToStr to fmt::Show.
Most of the details can be found in the first commit message.
Closes #12477
|
|
This commit changes the ToStr trait to:
impl<T: fmt::Show> ToStr for T {
fn to_str(&self) -> ~str { format!("{}", *self) }
}
The ToStr trait has been on the chopping block for quite awhile now, and this is
the final nail in its coffin. The trait and the corresponding method are not
being removed as part of this commit, but rather any implementations of the
`ToStr` trait are being forbidden because of the generic impl. The new way to
get the `to_str()` method to work is to implement `fmt::Show`.
Formatting into a `&mut Writer` (as `format!` does) is much more efficient than
`ToStr` when building up large strings. The `ToStr` trait forces many
intermediate allocations to be made while the `fmt::Show` trait allows
incremental buildup in the same heap allocated buffer. Additionally, the
`fmt::Show` trait is much more extensible in terms of interoperation with other
`Writer` instances and in more situations. By design the `ToStr` trait requires
at least one allocation whereas the `fmt::Show` trait does not require any
allocations.
Closes #8242
Closes #9806
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Closes #12366.
Parentheses around assignment statements such as
let mut a = (0);
a = (1);
a += (2);
are not necessary and therefore an unnecessary_parens warning is raised when
statements like this occur.
The warning mechanism was refactored along the way to allow for code reuse
between the routines for checking expressions and statements.
Code had to be adopted throughout the compiler and standard libraries to comply
with this modification of the lint.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This "bubble up an error" macro was originally named if_ok! in order to get it
landed, but after the fact it was discovered that this name is not exactly
desirable.
The name `if_ok!` isn't immediately clear that is has much to do with error
handling, and it doesn't look fantastic in all contexts (if if_ok!(...) {}). In
general, the agreed opinion about `if_ok!` is that is came in as subpar.
The name `try!` is more invocative of error handling, it's shorter by 2 letters,
and it looks fitting in almost all circumstances. One concern about the word
`try!` is that it's too invocative of exceptions, but the belief is that this
will be overcome with documentation and examples.
Close #12037
|
|
|
