This hairy conditional doesn't need to be so. It _does_ need to be a
thin pointer, otherwise, it will fail to compile, so let's pull that out
into a temporary for future readers of the source.
Also, after a discussion with @pnkfelix and @gankro, we don't need these
null checks anymore, as zero-on-drop has been gone for a while now.
The previous version using `PartialOrd::le` was broken since it passed `T`
arguments where `&T` was expected.
It makes sense to use primitive comparisons since range patterns can only be
used with chars and numeric types.
The current help message is too much about "normal" macros to be used
as general message. Keep it for normal macros, and add custom help and
error messages for macro definitions.
Rewrite of a paragraph in in the `match` section.
The colon `:` should be used only when the sentence preceeding it is a
complete sentence. If this is not the case, then a `;` should be used;
this denotes that the following fragment is a part of the previous
fragment.
I got a new bike; it has two wheels. (Similar to I got a new bike, it has two wheels)
The ice cream truck has great flavours; blueberry, blackberry, berryberry.
Writing a complete sentence:
- with a list under it
- You can join two sentences with it: Much like this.
r? @steveklabnik
The current explanation for scan() is not very clear as to how it works, especially when it compares itself to fold().
I believe these changes makes it all a bit more clear for the reader, and makes it easier to understand the example code.
r? @steveklabnik
This PR siliences some warnings when compiling stdlib with --test. Mostly remove some unused imports and added a few `#[allow(..)]`.
I also marked some signal handling functions with `#[cfg(not(test))]`, because they are only called through `rt::lang_start`, which is also marked as `#[cfg(not(test))]`
Previously, all references to closure arguments went to the argument before the
one they should (e.g. to arg1 when it was supposed to be arg2). This was because
the MIR builder did not account for the implicit arguments that come before the
explicit arguments, and closures have one implicit argument - the struct
containing the captures.
When using `cc` for linking rustc will, if gold is available (by looking for `/usr/bin/ld.gold`), pass `-fuse-ld=gold` to `cc`.
In some scenarios gold links much faster than ld. Servo uses it to considerably speed up linking. gold behaves nearly identically to ld (though I think there are rare corner cases that don't work still). I've run this through crater and everything there continues to link.
To disable, pass `-C disable-gold`.
Some history:
While getting Rust to 1.0, it was a struggle to keep the book in a
working state. I had always wanted a certain kind of TOC, but couldn't
quite get it there.
At the 11th hour, I wrote up "Rust inside other langauges" and "Dining
Philosophers" in an attempt to get the book in the direction I wanted to
go. They were fine, but not my best work. I wanted to further expand
this section, but it's just never going to end up happening. We're doing
the second draft of the book now, and these sections are basically gone
already.
Here's the issues with these two sections, and removing them just fixes
it all:
// Philosophers
There was always controversy over which ones were chosen, and why. This
is kind of a perpetual bikeshed, but it comes up every once in a while.
The implementation was originally supposed to show off channels, but
never did, due to time constraints. Months later, I still haven't
re-written it to use them.
People get different results and assume that means they're wrong, rather
than the non-determinism inherent in concurrency. Platform differences
aggrivate this, as does the exact amount of sleeping and printing.
// Rust Inside Other Languages
This section is wonderful, and shows off a strength of Rust. However,
it's not clear what qualifies a language to be in this section. And I'm
not sure how tracking a ton of other languages is gonna work, into the
future; we can't test _anything_ in this section, so it's prone to
bitrot.
By removing this section, and making the Guessing Game an initial
tutorial, we will move this version of the book closer to the future
version, and just eliminate all of these questions.
In addition, this also solves the 'split-brained'-ness of having two
paths, which has endlessly confused people in the past.
I'm sad to see these sections go, but I think it's for the best.
Fixes#30471Fixes#30163Fixes#30162Fixes#25488Fixes#30345Fixes#28713Fixes#28915
And probably others. This lengthy list alone is enough to show that
these should have been removed.
RIP.
