mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
e9019101a8
rust/src/test/run-pass/if-let.rs

68 lines
1.7 KiB
Rust
Raw Normal View History

Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
// Copyright 2014 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT
// file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at
// http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT.
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license
// <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your
// option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed
// except according to those terms.
pub fn main() {
Remove all `i` suffixes
2015-01-25 15:05:03 -06:00
let x = Some(3);
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
if let Some(y) = x {
Remove all `i` suffixes
2015-01-25 15:05:03 -06:00
assert_eq!(y, 3);
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
} else {
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!("if-let panicked");
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
}
let mut worked = false;
if let Some(_) = x {
worked = true;
}
assert!(worked);
let clause: uint;
if let None = Some("test") {
clause = 1;
Update suffixes en masse in tests using `perl -p -i -e`
2015-02-18 04:42:01 -06:00
} else if 4_usize > 5 {
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
clause = 2;
} else if let Ok(()) = Err::<(),&'static str>("test") {
clause = 3;
} else {
clause = 4;
}
Update suffixes en masse in tests using `perl -p -i -e`
2015-02-18 04:42:01 -06:00
assert_eq!(clause, 4_usize);
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
Remove all `i` suffixes
2015-01-25 15:05:03 -06:00
if 3 > 4 {
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!("bad math");
Remove all `i` suffixes
2015-01-25 15:05:03 -06:00
} else if let 1 = 2 {
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!("bad pattern match");
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
}
enum Foo {
One,
Two(uint),
Three(String, int)
}
Remove all `i` suffixes
2015-01-25 15:05:03 -06:00
let foo = Foo::Three("three".to_string(), 42);
Switch to purely namespaced enums This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to refer to the new locations: ``` pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = A; } ``` => ``` pub use self::Foo::{A, B}; pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = A; } ``` or ``` pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = Foo::A; } ``` [breaking-change]
2014-11-06 02:05:53 -06:00
if let Foo::One = foo {
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!("bad pattern match");
Switch to purely namespaced enums This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to refer to the new locations: ``` pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = A; } ``` => ``` pub use self::Foo::{A, B}; pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = A; } ``` or ``` pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = Foo::A; } ``` [breaking-change]
2014-11-06 02:05:53 -06:00
} else if let Foo::Two(_x) = foo {
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!("bad pattern match");
Switch to purely namespaced enums This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to refer to the new locations: ``` pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = A; } ``` => ``` pub use self::Foo::{A, B}; pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = A; } ``` or ``` pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = Foo::A; } ``` [breaking-change]
2014-11-06 02:05:53 -06:00
} else if let Foo::Three(s, _) = foo {
cleanup: replace `as[_mut]_slice()` calls with deref coercions
2015-02-01 20:53:25 -06:00
assert_eq!(s, "three");
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
} else {
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!("bad else");
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
}
if false {
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");
Update suffixes en masse in tests using `perl -p -i -e`
2015-02-18 04:42:01 -06:00
} else if let a@Foo::Two(_) = Foo::Two(42_usize) {
Switch to purely namespaced enums This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to refer to the new locations: ``` pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = A; } ``` => ``` pub use self::Foo::{A, B}; pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = A; } ``` or ``` pub enum Foo { A, B } fn main() { let a = Foo::A; } ``` [breaking-change]
2014-11-06 02:05:53 -06:00
if let Foo::Two(b) = a {
Update suffixes en masse in tests using `perl -p -i -e`
2015-02-18 04:42:01 -06:00
assert_eq!(b, 42_usize);
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
} else {
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!("panic in nested if-let");
Add tests for `if let`
2014-08-25 00:08:13 -05:00
}
}
}
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink