| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
These were stabilized in March 2018's #47813, and are the Preferred Way
to Do It going forward (q.v. #51043).
|
|
Most of the Rust community agrees that the vec! macro is clearer when
called using square brackets [] instead of regular brackets (). Most of
these ocurrences are from before macros allowed using different types of
brackets.
There is one left unchanged in a pretty-print test, as the pretty
printer still wants it to have regular brackets.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
This breaks code that looks like:
match foo {
1..3 => { ... }
}
Instead, write:
match foo {
1...3 => { ... }
}
Closes #17295.
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This breaks a fair amount of code. The typical patterns are:
* `for _ in range(0, 10)`: change to `for _ in range(0u, 10)`;
* `println!("{}", 3)`: change to `println!("{}", 3i)`;
* `[1, 2, 3].len()`: change to `[1i, 2, 3].len()`.
RFC #30. Closes #6023.
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
