| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as
their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to
refer to the new locations:
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
=>
```
pub use self::Foo::{A, B};
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
or
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = Foo::A;
}
```
[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]
|
|
`~[T]` in test, libgetopts, compiletest, librustdoc, and libnum.
|
|
|
|
This commit shreds all remnants of libextra from the compiler and standard
distribution. Two modules, c_vec/tempfile, were moved into libstd after some
cleanup, and the other modules were moved to separate crates as seen fit.
Closes #8784
Closes #12413
Closes #12576
|
|
This was previously implemented, and it just needed a snapshot to go through
|
|
|
|
|
|
These are relics that serve no purpose.
|
|
Who doesn't like a massive renaming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The typechecker previously passed around a boolean return flag to
indicate whether it saw something with type _|_ (that is, something
it knows at compile-time will definitely diverge) and also had some
manual checks for the `ty_err` pseudo-type that represents a previous
type error. This was because the typing rules implemented by the
typechecker didn't properly propagate _|_ and ty_err. I fixed it.
This also required changing expected error messages in a few tests,
as now we're printing out fewer derived errors -- in fact, at this
point we should print out no derived errors, so report any that
you see (ones that include "[type error]") as bugs.
|
|
imports
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Now that core exports "option" as a synonym for option::t, search-and-
replace option::t with option.
The only place that still refers to option::t are the modules in libcore
that use option, because fixing this requires a new snapshot
(forthcoming).
|
|
tests accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I tried to pay attention to what was actually being tested so, e.g. when I
test was just using a vec as a boxed thing, I converted to boxed ints, etc.
Haven't converted the macro tests yet. Not sure what to do there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
with their expected tag types
|
