| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
No longer does anything.
|
|
This removes all remnants of `@` pointers from rustc. Additionally, this removes
the `GC` structure from the prelude as it seems odd exporting an experimental
type in the prelude by default.
Closes #14193
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who doesn't like a massive renaming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
fail!() used to require owned strings but can handle static strings
now. Also, it can pass its arguments to fmt!() on its own, no need for
the caller to call fmt!() itself.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#2907.
|
|
This changes the indexing syntax from .() to [], the vector syntax from ~[] to
[] and the extension syntax from #fmt() to #fmt[]
|
|
While it is still technically possible to test stage 0, it is not part of any
of the main testing rules and maintaining xfail-stage0 is a chore. Nobody
should worry about how tests fare in stage0.
|
|
|
|
An expression like:
foo(1, fail, 2)
was failing to parse, because the parser was interpreting the comma
as the start of an expression that was an argument to fail, rather
than recognizing that the fail here has no arguments
Fixed this by using can_begin_expr to determine whether the next
token after a fail token suggests that this is a nullary fail or a
unary fail.
In addition, when translating calls, check before translating each
argument that the block still isn't terminated. This has the effect
that if an argument list includes fail, the back-end won't keep trying
to generate code for successive arguments and trip the !*terminated
assertion.
|