`fs::File` was being referenced without either calling via `std::fs::File` or by using `File` after having used `std::fs::File`. Also `Path` was being referenced without first having used `std::path::Path`.
fs::File was being referenced without either calling via std::fs::File or by using File after having used fs::File. Also Path was being referenced without first having used std::path::Path.
This is not a fix to checks themselves per se (though we still use `Eq` MIR test instead of calling `PartialEq::eq`), but rather how we handle items we encounter in pattern position.
Previously we would just call `PartialEq` with the constant and the matchee, but now we essentially inline the constant instead. E.g. these two snippets are functionally equivalent at MIR level:
```
match val { Some(42) => true, _ => false }
```
and
```
const SECRET: Option<u8> = Some(42);
match val { SECRET => true, _ => false }
```
This approach also allows for more optimizations of matches. I.e. It can now exploit `SwitchInt` to switch on number inside a `Some` regardless of whether the value being an item or not.
This is based on @tsion’s already approved PR so I could reuse the file for more tests.
r? @eddyb
cc @nikomatsakis @tsion
These should probably be submitted upstream. They're inevitably going to
complicate merges, and because they're non-functional changes this just
isn't worth our time.
Obviously we can't remove the character one past the end of the String. And we can't today either - we'll just panic at char_at() instead - but if we're going to keep that assertion, we should at least have a correct assertion.
Obviously we can't remove the character one past the end of the String. And we can't today either - we'll just panic at char_at() instead - but if we're going to keep that assertion, we should at least have a correct assertion.
f64 methods have been stable since rust 1.0, but f32 never got stabilised.
I suggest backporting this to beta as well (needs changing stablilisation version then).
r? @aturon
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/1438
When looking in the documentation I often scan the examples the first thing I do. In these 3 cases it's not obvious which direction the operation happens by adding this comment it makes it more obvious.
r? @steveklabnik
Are trait impls still insta-stable? Considering that this design has been around for a long time on `String` and `OsString` it probably doesn't matter much...
The `From` impl is a bit strange to me. It's stolen from `OsString` but I'm not really sure about it... `String` just impls `From<&str>` instead, would that make more sense?
