associated machinery. Future such attempts should go through lints
anyhow.
There is a fair amount of fallout in the compile-fail tests, as WF
checking now occurs earlier in the process.
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]
signature. In a nutshell, the idea is to (1) report an error if, for
a region pointer `'a T`, the lifetime `'a` is longer than any
lifetimes that appear in `T` (in other words, if a borrowed pointer
outlives any portion of its contents) and then (2) use this to assume
that in a function like `fn(self: &'a &'b T)`, the relationship `'a <=
'b` holds. This is needed for #5656. Fixes#5728.
