These implementations were intended to be unstable, but currently the stability
attributes cannot handle a stable trait with an unstable `impl` block. This
commit also audits the rest of the standard library for explicitly-`#[unstable]`
impl blocks. No others were removed but some annotations were changed to
`#[stable]` as they're defacto stable anyway.
One particularly interesting `impl` marked `#[stable]` as part of this commit
is the `Add<&[T]>` impl for `Vec<T>`, which uses `push_all` and implicitly
clones all elements of the vector provided.
Closes#24791
[breaking-change]
`.drain(range)` is unstable and under feature(collections_drain).
This adds a safe way to remove any range of a String as efficiently as
possible.
As noted in the code, this drain iterator has none of the memory safety
issues of the vector version.
RFC tracking issue is #23055
These implementations were intended to be unstable, but currently the stability
attributes cannot handle a stable trait with an unstable `impl` block. This
commit also audits the rest of the standard library for explicitly-`#[unstable]`
impl blocks. No others were removed but some annotations were changed to
`#[stable]` as they're defacto stable anyway.
One particularly interesting `impl` marked `#[stable]` as part of this commit
is the `Add<&[T]>` impl for `Vec<T>`, which uses `push_all` and implicitly
clones all elements of the vector provided.
Closes#24791
- unbreak the build under openbsd
- while here, apply same modification to dragonfly, freebsd, ios (pid_t
imported, but not used in raw.rs)
r? @alexcrichton
cc @wg @mneumann @vhbit
Hi! While researching stuff for the reference and the grammar, I came across a few mentions of using the `priv` keyword that was removed in 0.11.0 (#13547, #8122, rust-lang/rfcs#26, [RFC 0026](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0026-remove-priv.md)).
One occurrence is a mention in the reference, a few are in comments, and a few are marking test functions. I left the test that makes sure you can't name an ident `priv` since it's still a reserved keyword. I did a little grepping around for `priv `, priv in backticks, `Private` etc and I think the remaining instances are fine, but if anyone knows anywhere in particular I should check for any other lingering mentions of `priv`, please let me know and I would be happy to! 🍂🌊
This uses a (per-trait) hash-table to separate impls from different TraitDefs, and makes coherence go so much quicker. I will post performance numbers tomorrow.
This is still WIP, as when there's an overlap error, impls can get printed in the wrong order, which causes a few issues. Should I pick the local impl with the smallest NodeId to print?
Could you take a look at this @nikomatsakis?
This commit brings the `Error` trait in line with the [Error interoperation
RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/201) by adding downcasting,
which has long been intended. This change means that for any `Error`
trait objects that are `'static`, you can downcast to concrete error
types.
To make this work, it is necessary for `Error` to inherit from
`Reflect` (which is currently used to mark concrete types as "permitted
for reflection, aka downcasting"). This is a breaking change: it means
that impls like
```rust
impl<T> Error for MyErrorType<T> { ... }
```
must change to
```rust
impl<T: Reflect> Error for MyErrorType<T> { ... }
```
This commit furthermore marks `Reflect` as stable, since we are already
essentially committed to it via `Any`. Note that in the future, if we
determine that the parametricity aspects of `Reflect` are not needed, we
can deprecate the trait and provide a blanket implementation for it
for *all* types (rather than by using OIBIT), which would allow all
mentions of `Reflect` to be dropped over time. So there is not a strong
commitment here.
[breaking-change]
r? @alexcrichton
This commit brings the `Error` trait in line with the [Error interoperation
RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/201) by adding downcasting,
which has long been intended. This change means that for any `Error`
trait objects that are `'static`, you can downcast to concrete error
types.
To make this work, it is necessary for `Error` to inherit from
`Reflect` (which is currently used to mark concrete types as "permitted
for reflection, aka downcasting"). This is a breaking change: it means
that impls like
```rust
impl<T> Error for MyErrorType<T> { ... }
```
must change to something like
```rust
impl<T: Reflect> Error for MyErrorType<T> { ... }
```
except that `Reflect` is currently unstable (and should remain so for
the time being). For now, code can instead bound by `Any`:
```rust
impl<T: Any> Error for MyErrorType<T> { ... }
```
which *is* stable and has `Reflect` as a super trait. The downside is
that this imposes a `'static` constraint, but that only
constrains *when* `Error` is implemented -- it does not actually
constrain the types that can implement `Error`.
[breaking-change]
Apparently implementations are allowed to return EDEADLK instead of blocking
forever, in which case this can lead to unsafety in the `RwLock` primitive
exposed by the standard library. A debug-build of the standard library would
have caught this error (due to the debug assert), but we don't ship debug
builds right now.
This commit adds explicit checks for the EDEADLK error code and triggers a panic
to ensure the call does not succeed.
Closes#25012
As pointed out in #17136 the semantics of a `BufStream` aren't always what one
expects, and it looks like other [languages like C#][c-sharp] implement a
buffered stream with only one underlying buffer. For now this commit
destabilizes the primitive in the `std::io` module to give us some more time in
figuring out what to do with it.
[c-sharp]: https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.io.bufferedstream%28v=vs.110%29.aspx
[breaking-change]
Explanations for E0079, E0080, E0081, E0082, E0083 and E0084 as part of #24407.
All the errors concern the use of `#[repr(X)]` with enum types.
I also updated the short description for E0079 so that it takes sign into account.
I'm interested in helping out with #16676 but more in the grammar than the reference-- here's my first chunk, more to come!! 🎉
I did pull a bit *out* of the reference, though, that was more relevant to the grammar but wasn't moved over as part of #24729.
I'm looking at, e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/libsyntax/ast.rs, as the source of truth, please let me know if I should be checking against something else instead/in addition.
r? @steveklabnik
