rust/tests/ui/binding/match-struct-0.rs

// run-pass

struct Foo{
    f : isize,
}

pub fn main() {
    let f = Foo{f: 1};
    match f {
        Foo{f: 0} => panic!(),
        Foo{..} => (),
    }
    match f {
        Foo{f: 0} => panic!(),
        Foo{f: _f} => (),
    }
    match f {
        Foo{f: 0} => panic!(),
        _ => (),
    }
}
Add `// run-pass` annotations to all the tests under `ui/run-pass/`. (I may have accidentally added it to some auxilliary crates as well; my emacs-macro-based methodology was pretty crude.) 2018-08-30 07:18:55 -05:00			`// run-pass`
rustdoc: Replace no-pretty-expanded with pretty-expanded 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. 2015-03-22 15:13:15 -05:00
Added testcases for `match` keyword Added testcases for `match` keyword including test for issue #5625. 2013-08-06 13:37:27 -05:00			`struct Foo{`
Mass rename uint/int to usize/isize Now that support has been removed, all lingering use cases are renamed. 2015-03-25 19:06:52 -05:00			`f : isize,`
Added testcases for `match` keyword Added testcases for `match` keyword including test for issue #5625. 2013-08-06 13:37:27 -05:00			`}`

			`pub fn main() {`
			`let f = Foo{f: 1};`
			`match f {`
Rename fail! to panic! 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] 2014-10-09 14:17:22 -05:00			`Foo{f: 0} => panic!(),`
Register new snapshots 2013-11-28 14:22:53 -06:00			`Foo{..} => (),`
Added testcases for `match` keyword Added testcases for `match` keyword including test for issue #5625. 2013-08-06 13:37:27 -05:00			`}`
			`match f {`
Rename fail! to panic! 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] 2014-10-09 14:17:22 -05:00			`Foo{f: 0} => panic!(),`
Added testcases for `match` keyword Added testcases for `match` keyword including test for issue #5625. 2013-08-06 13:37:27 -05:00			`Foo{f: _f} => (),`
			`}`
			`match f {`
Rename fail! to panic! 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] 2014-10-09 14:17:22 -05:00			`Foo{f: 0} => panic!(),`
Added testcases for `match` keyword Added testcases for `match` keyword including test for issue #5625. 2013-08-06 13:37:27 -05:00			`_ => (),`
			`}`
			`}`