| 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]
|
|
(And fix some tests.)
|
|
`~[T]` in test, libgetopts, compiletest, librustdoc, and libnum.
|
|
|
|
Who doesn't like a massive renaming?
|
|
|
|
this has been replaced by `for`
|
|
|
|
I removed the `static-method-test.rs` test because it was heavily based
on `BaseIter` and there are plenty of other more complex uses of static
methods anyway.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most could use the each method, but because of the hack used to
disambiguate old- and new-style loops, some had to use vec::each.
(This hack will go away soon.)
Issue #1619
|
|
This changes the indexing syntax from .() to [], the vector syntax from ~[] to
[] and the extension syntax from #fmt() to #fmt[]
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
