This PR includes two big things and a bunch of little ones.
1) It enables hygiene for variables bound by 'match' expressions.
2) It fixes a bug discovered indirectly (#15221), wherein fold traversal failed to visit nonterminal nodes.
3) It fixes a small bug in the macro tutorial.
It also adds tests for the first two, and makes a bunch of small comment improvements and cleanup.
... and possibly totally pointless. Specifically, fixing
these to make their macros hygienic may mean that they no
longer test the thing that they were supposed to test.
rustc: update the unnecessary parens lint for struct literals.
Things like `match X { x: 1 } { ... }` now need to be written with
parentheses, so the lint should avoid warning in cases like that.
This diff will look better once bors takes care of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/15183
@brson and I talked about it, and, if I commit this skeleton, I can submit PRs for each portion, without doing this silly "builds on previous PRs" stuff, and it shouldn't cause conflicts.
This lays out what I think the guide should cover, and in what order. I haven't picked a cohesive project yet that shows all this off, but I think this progression of concepts is appropriate.
We use re-exported pathes (e.g. std::io::Command) and original ones
(e.g. std::io::process::Command) together in examples now. Using
re-exported ones consistently avoids confusion.
Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.
This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.
Closes#14036.
[breaking-change]
r? @alexcrichton
Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.
This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.
A better solution would be to add higher-rank lifetime support to procs.
However, this would be a lot of work for a feature we want to remove in
favor of unboxed closures. The corresponding "real fix" is #15067.
Closes#14036.
[breaking-change]
We use re-exported pathes (e.g. std::io::Command) and original ones
(e.g. std::io::process::Command) together in examples now. Using
re-exported ones consistently avoids confusion.
Signed-off-by: OGINO Masanori <masanori.ogino@gmail.com>
Most of the comments are available on the Task structure itself, but this commit
is aimed at making FFI-style usage of Rust tasks a little nicer.
Primarily, this commit enables re-use of tasks across multiple invocations. The
method `run` will no longer unconditionally destroy the task itself. Rather, the
task will be internally re-usable if the closure specified did not fail. Once a
task has failed once it is considered poisoned and it can never be used again.
Along the way I tried to document shortcomings of the current method of tearing
down a task, opening a few issues as well. For now none of the behavior is a
showstopper, but it's useful to acknowledge it. Also along the way I attempted
to remove as much `unsafe` code as possible, opting for safer abstractions.
Most of the comments are available on the Task structure itself, but this commit
is aimed at making FFI-style usage of Rust tasks a little nicer.
Primarily, this commit enables re-use of tasks across multiple invocations. The
method `run` will no longer unconditionally destroy the task itself. Rather, the
task will be internally re-usable if the closure specified did not fail. Once a
task has failed once it is considered poisoned and it can never be used again.
Along the way I tried to document shortcomings of the current method of tearing
down a task, opening a few issues as well. For now none of the behavior is a
showstopper, but it's useful to acknowledge it. Also along the way I attempted
to remove as much `unsafe` code as possible, opting for safer abstractions.
What's funny about this one is that spellcheck caught it, but for
some reason didn't give me the right suggestion, so I assumed that it
wasn't in my dictionary. Oh well.
Thanks @P1start! ❤️
