| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
This commit removes pretty-expanded from all tests that wind up calling panic!
one way or another now that its internals are unstable.
|
|
Now that features must be declared expanded source often does not compile.
This adds 'pretty-expanded' to a bunch of test cases that still work.
|
|
This is the kind of change that one is expected to need to make to
accommodate overloaded-`box`.
----
Note that this is not *all* of the changes necessary to accommodate
Issue 22181. It is merely the subset of those cases where there was
already a let-binding in place that made it easy to add the necesasry
type ascription.
(For unnamed intermediate `Box` values, one must go down a different
route; `Box::new` is the option that maximizes portability, but has
potential inefficiency depending on whether the call is inlined.)
----
There is one place worth note, `run-pass/coerce-match.rs`, where I
used an ugly form of `Box<_>` type ascription where I would have
preferred to use `Box::new` to accommodate overloaded-`box`. I
deliberately did not use `Box::new` here, because that is already done
in coerce-match-calls.rs.
----
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
|
|
|
|
instead in the future.)
|
|
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 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]
|
|
for `~str`/`~[]`.
Note that `~self` still remains, since I forgot to add support for
`Box<self>` before the snapshot.
How to update your code:
* Instead of `~EXPR`, you should write `box EXPR`.
* Instead of `~TYPE`, you should write `Box<Type>`.
* Instead of `~PATTERN`, you should write `box PATTERN`.
[breaking-change]
|
|
These are relics that serve no purpose.
|
|
Who doesn't like a massive renaming?
|
|
|
|
|
