rust/tests/ui/expr/if/expr-if-panic-pass.rs

// run-pass

fn test_if_panic() {
    let x = if false { panic!() } else { 10 };
    assert_eq!(x, 10);
}

fn test_else_panic() {
    let x = if true { 10 } else { panic!() };
    assert_eq!(x, 10);
}

fn test_elseif_panic() {
    let x = if false { 0 } else if false { panic!() } else { 10 };
    assert_eq!(x, 10);
}

pub fn main() { test_if_panic(); test_else_panic(); test_elseif_panic(); }
tests: Add missing run-pass annotations 2019-07-26 16:54:25 -05:00			`// run-pass`

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			`fn test_if_panic() {`
Remove all `i` suffixes 2015-01-25 15:05:03 -06:00			`let x = if false { panic!() } else { 10 };`
Use `assert_eq!` instead of `assert!` in tests 2015-06-07 13:00:38 -05:00			`assert_eq!(x, 10);`
librustc: Remove the fallback to `int` for integers and `f64` for 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] 2014-06-27 14:30:25 -05:00			`}`
rustc: Allow if expressions to fail 2011-05-21 13:07:44 -05:00
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			`fn test_else_panic() {`
Remove all `i` suffixes 2015-01-25 15:05:03 -06:00			`let x = if true { 10 } else { panic!() };`
			`assert_eq!(x, 10);`
rustc: Allow if expressions to fail 2011-05-21 13:07:44 -05:00			`}`

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			`fn test_elseif_panic() {`
Remove all `i` suffixes 2015-01-25 15:05:03 -06:00			`let x = if false { 0 } else if false { panic!() } else { 10 };`
			`assert_eq!(x, 10);`
rustc: Allow if expressions to fail 2011-05-21 13:07:44 -05:00			`}`

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			`pub fn main() { test_if_panic(); test_else_panic(); test_elseif_panic(); }`