Use the `is_shorthand` field introduced by #17813 (ead6c4b) to make the
prettyprinter output the shorthand form. Fixes a few places that set
`is_shorthand: true` when the pattern is not a PatIdent with the same
name as the field.
Spring cleaning is here! In the Fall! This commit removes quite a large amount
of deprecated functionality from the standard libraries. I tried to ensure that
only old deprecated functionality was removed.
This is removing lots and lots of deprecated features, so this is a breaking
change. Please consult the deprecation messages of the deleted code to see how
to migrate code forward if it still needs migration.
[breaking-change]
Doing so would incur deeply nested expansion of the tree with no useful
side effects. This is problematic for "wide" data types such as structs
with dozens of fields but where only a few are actually being matched or bound.
Most notably, matching a fixed slice would use a number of stack frames that
grows with the number of elements in the slice.
Fixes#17877.
This change is an implementation of [RFC 69][rfc] which adds a third kind of
global to the language, `const`. This global is most similar to what the old
`static` was, and if you're unsure about what to use then you should use a
`const`.
The semantics of these three kinds of globals are:
* A `const` does not represent a memory location, but only a value. Constants
are translated as rvalues, which means that their values are directly inlined
at usage location (similar to a #define in C/C++). Constant values are, well,
constant, and can not be modified. Any "modification" is actually a
modification to a local value on the stack rather than the actual constant
itself.
Almost all values are allowed inside constants, whether they have interior
mutability or not. There are a few minor restrictions listed in the RFC, but
they should in general not come up too often.
* A `static` now always represents a memory location (unconditionally). Any
references to the same `static` are actually a reference to the same memory
location. Only values whose types ascribe to `Sync` are allowed in a `static`.
This restriction is in place because many threads may access a `static`
concurrently. Lifting this restriction (and allowing unsafe access) is a
future extension not implemented at this time.
* A `static mut` continues to always represent a memory location. All references
to a `static mut` continue to be `unsafe`.
This is a large breaking change, and many programs will need to be updated
accordingly. A summary of the breaking changes is:
* Statics may no longer be used in patterns. Statics now always represent a
memory location, which can sometimes be modified. To fix code, repurpose the
matched-on-`static` to a `const`.
static FOO: uint = 4;
match n {
FOO => { /* ... */ }
_ => { /* ... */ }
}
change this code to:
const FOO: uint = 4;
match n {
FOO => { /* ... */ }
_ => { /* ... */ }
}
* Statics may no longer refer to other statics by value. Due to statics being
able to change at runtime, allowing them to reference one another could
possibly lead to confusing semantics. If you are in this situation, use a
constant initializer instead. Note, however, that statics may reference other
statics by address, however.
* Statics may no longer be used in constant expressions, such as array lengths.
This is due to the same restrictions as listed above. Use a `const` instead.
[breaking-change]
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/246
Modify ast::ExprMatch to include a new value of type ast::MatchSource,
making it easy to tell whether the match was written literally or
produced via desugaring. This allows us to customize error messages
appropriately.
They were only correct in the simplest case. Some of the optimisations
are certainly possible but should be introduced carefully and only
when the whole pattern codegen infrastructure is in a better shape.
Fixes#16648.
This is an alternative to upgrading the way rvalues are handled in the
borrow check. Making rvalues handled more like lvalues in the borrow
check caused numerous problems related to double mutable borrows and
rvalue scopes. Rather than come up with more borrow check rules to try
to solve these problems, I decided to just forbid pattern bindings after
`@`. This affected fewer than 10 lines of code in the compiler and
libraries.
This breaks code like:
match x {
y @ z => { ... }
}
match a {
b @ Some(c) => { ... }
}
Change this code to use nested `match` or `let` expressions. For
example:
match x {
y => {
let z = y;
...
}
}
match a {
Some(c) => {
let b = Some(c);
...
}
}
Closes#14587.
[breaking-change]
the CFG for match statements.
There were two bugs in issue #14684. One was simply that the borrow
check didn't know about the correct CFG for match statements: the
pattern must be a predecessor of the guard. This disallows the bad
behavior if there are bindings in the pattern. But it isn't enough to
prevent the memory safety problem, because of wildcards; thus, this
patch introduces a more restrictive rule, which disallows assignments
and mutable borrows inside guards outright.
I discussed this with Niko and we decided this was the best plan of
action.
This breaks code that performs mutable borrows in pattern guards. Most
commonly, the code looks like this:
impl Foo {
fn f(&mut self, ...) {}
fn g(&mut self, ...) {
match bar {
Baz if self.f(...) => { ... }
_ => { ... }
}
}
}
Change this code to not use a guard. For example:
impl Foo {
fn f(&mut self, ...) {}
fn g(&mut self, ...) {
match bar {
Baz => {
if self.f(...) {
...
} else {
...
}
}
_ => { ... }
}
}
}
Sometimes this can result in code duplication, but often it illustrates
a hidden memory safety problem.
Closes#14684.
[breaking-change]
This makes edge cases in which the `Iterator` trait was not in scope
and/or `Option` or its variants were not in scope work properly.
This breaks code that looks like:
struct MyStruct { ... }
impl MyStruct {
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<int> { ... }
}
for x in MyStruct { ... } { ... }
Change ad-hoc `next` methods like the above to implementations of the
`Iterator` trait. For example:
impl Iterator<int> for MyStruct {
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<int> { ... }
}
Closes#15392.
[breaking-change]
This is accomplished by rewriting static expressions into equivalent patterns.
This way, patterns referencing static variables can both participate
in exhaustiveness analysis as well as be compiled down into the appropriate
branch of the decision trees that match expressions are codegened to.
Fixes#6533.
Fixes#13626.
Fixes#13731.
Fixes#14576.
Fixes#15393.
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]
Slice patterns are different from the rest in that a single slice pattern
does not have a distinct constructor if it contains a variable-length subslice
pattern. For example, the pattern [a, b, ..tail] can match a slice of length 2, 3, 4
and so on.
As a result, the decision tree for exhaustiveness and redundancy analysis should
explore each of those constructors separately to determine if the pattern could be useful
when specialized for any of them.
bindings.
This will break code that incorrectly did things like:
fn f(a @ box b: Box<String>) {}
Fix such code to not rely on undefined behavior.
Closes#12534.
[breaking-change]
