except where trait objects are involved.
Part of issue #15349, though I'm leaving it open for trait objects.
Cross borrowing for trait objects remains because it is needed until we
have DST.
This will break code like:
fn foo(x: &int) { ... }
let a = box 3i;
foo(a);
Change this code to:
fn foo(x: &int) { ... }
let a = box 3i;
foo(&*a);
[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]
Now that rustdoc understands proper language tags
as the code not being Rust, we can tag everything
properly.
This change tags examples in other languages by
their language. Plain notations are marked as `text`.
Console examples are marked as `console`.
Also fix markdown.rs to not highlight non-rust code.
This commit moves reflection (as well as the {:?} format modifier) to a new
libdebug crate, all of which is marked experimental.
This is a breaking change because it now requires the debug crate to be
explicitly linked if the :? format qualifier is used. This means that any code
using this feature will have to add `extern crate debug;` to the top of the
crate. Any code relying on reflection will also need to do this.
Closes#12019
[breaking-change]
This commit moves reflection (as well as the {:?} format modifier) to a new
libdebug crate, all of which is marked experimental.
This is a breaking change because it now requires the debug crate to be
explicitly linked if the :? format qualifier is used. This means that any code
using this feature will have to add `extern crate debug;` to the top of the
crate. Any code relying on reflection will also need to do this.
Closes#12019
[breaking-change]
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]
The original text stated that one should only return a unique or managed pointer if you were given one in the first place. This makes it sound as if the function *should* return a unique pointer if it were given a unique pointer. The rest of the section goes on to describe why this is bad, and the example of bad code does exactly what the rule just said to do.
I reworded the original rule into a reference to the more concise rule mentioned at the bottom of the section, which helps add emphasis (a la 'it bears repeating').
The `Float` trait methods will be usable as functions via UFCS, and
we came to a consensus to remove duplicate functions like this a long
time ago.
It does still make sense to keep the duplicate functions when the trait
methods are static, unless the decision to leave out the in-scope trait
name resolution for static methods changes.
