| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
Merge `feature(advanced_slice_patterns)` into `feature(slice_patterns)`
|
|
nested slice patterns have the same functionality as non-nested
ones, so flatten them in HAIR construction.
Fixes #26158.
|
|
|
|
non-MIR translation is still not supported for these and will happily ICE.
This is a [breaking-change] for many uses of slice_patterns.
|
|
This commit removes pretty-expanded from all tests that wind up calling panic!
one way or another now that its internals are unstable.
|
|
Conflicts:
src/test/run-pass/issue-13027.rs
|
|
Until some backwards-compatibility hazards are fixed in #23121,
these need to be unstable.
[breaking-change]
|
|
Now that support has been removed, all lingering use cases are renamed.
|
|
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.
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
instead of prefix `..`.
This breaks code that looked like:
match foo {
[ first, ..middle, last ] => { ... }
}
Change this code to:
match foo {
[ first, middle.., last ] => { ... }
}
RFC #55.
Closes #16967.
[breaking-change]
|
|
This breaks code that uses the `..xs` form anywhere but at the end of a
slice. For example:
match foo {
[ 1, ..xs, 2 ]
[ ..xs, 1, 2 ]
}
Add the `#![feature(advanced_slice_patterns)]` gate to reenable the
syntax.
RFC #54.
Closes #16951.
[breaking-change]
|
|
|
|
|
|
floating point numbers for real.
This will break code that looks like:
let mut x = 0;
while ... {
x += 1;
}
println!("{}", x);
Change that code to:
let mut x = 0i;
while ... {
x += 1;
}
println!("{}", x);
Closes #15201.
[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]
|
|
Fixes #15080.
|
|
Preparatory work for removing unique vectors from the language, which is
itself preparatory work for dynamically sized types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Who doesn't like a massive renaming?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Code like this is fixed now:
```
fn foo(p: [u8, ..4]) {
match p {
[a, b, c, d] => {}
};
}
```
Invalid constructors are not reported as errors yet:
```
fn foo(p: [u8, ..4]) {
match p {
[_, _, _] => {} // this should be error
[_, _, _, _, _, .._] => {} // and this
_ => {}
}
}
```
Issue #8311 is partially fixed by this commit. Fixed-length arrays in
let statement are not yet allowed:
```
let [a, b, c] = [1, 2, 3]; // still fails
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
