rust/tests/ui/binding/expr-match-generic-unique1.rs

// run-pass

fn test_generic<T: Clone, F>(expected: Box<T>, eq: F) where F: FnOnce(Box<T>, Box<T>) -> bool {
    let actual: Box<T> = match true {
        true => { expected.clone() },
        _ => panic!("wat")
    };
    assert!(eq(expected, actual));
}

fn test_box() {
    fn compare_box(b1: Box<bool>, b2: Box<bool>) -> bool {
        return *b1 == *b2;
    }
    test_generic::<bool, _>(Box::new(true), compare_box);
}

pub fn main() { test_box(); }
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`
fallout: run-pass tests that use box. (many could be ported to `Box::new` instead in the future.) 2015-01-07 19:25:56 -06:00
fix rpass tests 2015-01-02 16:32:54 -06:00			`fn test_generic<T: Clone, F>(expected: Box<T>, eq: F) where F: FnOnce(Box<T>, Box<T>) -> bool {`
librustc: Remove `~EXPR`, `~TYPE`, and `~PAT` from the language, except 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] 2014-05-05 20:56:44 -05:00			`let actual: Box<T> = match true {`
Clonify some of run-pass 2013-03-15 17:27:15 -05:00			`true => { expected.clone() },`
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			`_ => panic!("wat")`
test: Fix a bunch of test cases. rs=burning 2012-12-05 13:40:47 -06:00			`};`
fix rpass tests 2015-01-02 16:32:54 -06:00			`assert!(eq(expected, actual));`
Create a bunch of test cases for unique boxes by copying box tests XFAIL the ones that don't work Issue #409 2011-09-23 16:58:06 -05:00			`}`

			`fn test_box() {`
librustc: Remove `~EXPR`, `~TYPE`, and `~PAT` from the language, except 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] 2014-05-05 20:56:44 -05:00			`fn compare_box(b1: Box<bool>, b2: Box<bool>) -> bool {`
			`return b1 == b2;`
			`}`
Remove box syntax from most places in src/test outside of the issues dir 2021-08-24 19:39:40 -05:00			`test_generic::<bool, _>(Box::new(true), compare_box);`
Create a bunch of test cases for unique boxes by copying box tests XFAIL the ones that don't work Issue #409 2011-09-23 16:58:06 -05:00			`}`

check-fast fallout from removing export, r=burningtree 2013-02-01 21:43:17 -06:00			`pub fn main() { test_box(); }`