This change makes the compiler no longer infer whether types (structures
and enumerations) implement the `Copy` trait (and thus are implicitly
copyable). Rather, you must implement `Copy` yourself via `impl Copy for
MyType {}`.
A new warning has been added, `missing_copy_implementations`, to warn
you if a non-generic public type has been added that could have
implemented `Copy` but didn't.
For convenience, you may *temporarily* opt out of this behavior by using
`#![feature(opt_out_copy)]`. Note though that this feature gate will never be
accepted and will be removed by the time that 1.0 is released, so you should
transition your code away from using it.
This breaks code like:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
Change this code to:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
impl Copy for Point2D {}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
This is the backwards-incompatible part of #13231.
Part of RFC #3.
[breaking-change]
One negative side-effect of this change is that there might be quite a bit of copying strings out of the codemap, i.e. one copy for every block that gets translated, just for taking a look at the last character of the block. If this turns out to cause a performance problem then `CodeMap::span_to_snippet()` could be changed return `Option<&str>` instead of `Option<String>`.
Fixes#18791
This breaks code like
```
let t = (42i, 42i);
... t.0::<int> ...;
```
Change this code to not contain an unused type parameter. For example:
```
let t = (42i, 42i);
... t.0 ...;
```
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19096
[breaking-change]
r? @aturon
Use the expected type to infer the argument/return types of unboxed closures. Also, in `||` expressions, use the expected type to decide if the result should be a boxed or unboxed closure (and if an unboxed closure, what kind).
This supercedes PR #19089, which was already reviewed by @pcwalton.
