summary refs log tree commit diff
path: root/src/test/run-pass/expr-match-struct.rs
AgeCommit message (Collapse)AuthorLines
2015-04-01Fallout in testsNiko Matsakis-2/+2
2015-03-26Mass rename uint/int to usize/isizeAlex Crichton-2/+2
Now that support has been removed, all lingering use cases are renamed.
2015-01-29s/Show/Debug/gJorge Aparicio-1/+1
2015-01-25cleanup: s/impl Copy/#[derive(Copy)]/gJorge Aparicio-5/+2
2015-01-02Use `derive` rather than `deriving` in testsNick Cameron-1/+1
2014-12-08librustc: Make `Copy` opt-in.Niko Matsakis-0/+4
This change makes the compiler no longer infer whether types (structures and enumerations) implement the `Copy` trait (and thus are implicitly copyable). Rather, you must implement `Copy` yourself via `impl Copy for MyType {}`. A new warning has been added, `missing_copy_implementations`, to warn you if a non-generic public type has been added that could have implemented `Copy` but didn't. For convenience, you may *temporarily* opt out of this behavior by using `#![feature(opt_out_copy)]`. Note though that this feature gate will never be accepted and will be removed by the time that 1.0 is released, so you should transition your code away from using it. This breaks code like: #[deriving(Show)] struct Point2D { x: int, y: int, } fn main() { let mypoint = Point2D { x: 1, y: 1, }; let otherpoint = mypoint; println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint); } Change this code to: #[deriving(Show)] struct Point2D { x: int, y: int, } impl Copy for Point2D {} fn main() { let mypoint = Point2D { x: 1, y: 1, }; let otherpoint = mypoint; println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint); } This is the backwards-incompatible part of #13231. Part of RFC #3. [breaking-change]
2014-11-17Switch to purely namespaced enumsSteven Fackler-2/+2
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]
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]
2014-05-30std: Rename {Eq,Ord} to Partial{Eq,Ord}Alex Crichton-1/+1
This is part of the ongoing renaming of the equality traits. See #12517 for more details. All code using Eq/Ord will temporarily need to move to Partial{Eq,Ord} or the Total{Eq,Ord} traits. The Total traits will soon be renamed to {Eq,Ord}. cc #12517 [breaking-change]
2014-02-28std: Change assert_eq!() to use {} instead of {:?}Alex Crichton-0/+1
Formatting via reflection has been a little questionable for some time now, and it's a little unfortunate that one of the standard macros will silently use reflection when you weren't expecting it. This adds small bits of code bloat to libraries, as well as not always being necessary. In light of this information, this commit switches assert_eq!() to using {} in the error message instead of {:?}. In updating existing code, there were a few error cases that I encountered: * It's impossible to define Show for [T, ..N]. I think DST will alleviate this because we can define Show for [T]. * A few types here and there just needed a #[deriving(Show)] * Type parameters needed a Show bound, I often moved this to `assert!(a == b)` * `Path` doesn't implement `Show`, so assert_eq!() cannot be used on two paths. I don't think this is much of a regression though because {:?} on paths looks awful (it's a byte array). Concretely speaking, this shaved 10K off a 656K binary. Not a lot, but sometime significant for smaller binaries.
2013-10-25Remove ancient emacs mode lines from test casesBrian Anderson-1/+0
These are relics that serve no purpose.
2013-10-22Drop the '2' suffix from logging macrosAlex Crichton-1/+1
Who doesn't like a massive renaming?
2013-09-30rpass: Remove usage of fmt!Alex Crichton-1/+1
2013-05-29librustc: Stop reexporting the standard modules from prelude.Patrick Walton-1/+1
2013-05-27Change `alt` to `match` in filenames.Lindsey Kuper-0/+38