about summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/src/test/compile-fail/coherence-blanket-conflicts-with-specific-multidispatch.rs
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2018-08-14Moved compile-fail tests to ui tests.David Wood-36/+0
2016-03-14Adjust overlap-related tests to account for cosmetic changes to error ↵Aaron Turon-2/+2
reporting behavior
2015-02-21Kill fmt::Show and fmt::String with fire!Simonas Kazlauskas-1/+1
Toss the tomatoes!
2015-01-08Update compile fail tests to use usize.Huon Wilson-2/+2
2015-01-02Use `derive` rather than `deriving` in testsNick Cameron-1/+1
2014-10-29Rename fail! to panic!Steve Klabnik-1/+1
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]
2014-10-09Implement multidispatch and conditional dispatch. Because we do notNiko Matsakis-0/+36
attempt to preserve crate concatenation, this is a backwards compatible change. Conflicts: src/librustc/middle/traits/select.rs