A few ergonomic From impls for SocketAddr/IpAddr
My main motivation is removing things like this: `"127.0.0.1:3000".parse().unwrap()`. Instead, this now works: `SocketAddr::from(([127, 0, 0, 1], 3000))` or even `([127, 0, 0, 1], 3000).into())` when passing to a function.
Improve error message for uninferrable types #38812
Hello,
I tried to improve the error message for uninferrable types. The error code is `E0282`.
```rust
error[E0282]: type annotations needed
--> /home/cengizIO/issue38812.rs:2:11
|
2 | let x = vec![];
| - ^^^^^^ cannot infer type for `T`
| |
| consider giving `x` a type
|
= note: this error originates in a macro outside of the current crate
```
and
```rust
error[E0282]: type annotations needed
--> /home/cengizIO/issue38812.rs:2:15
|
2 | let (x,) = (vec![],);
| ---- ^^^^^^ cannot infer type for `T`
| |
| consider giving a type to pattern
|
= note: this error originates in a macro outside of the current crate
```
Rust compiler now tries to find uninferred `local`s with type `_` and adds them into the error message.
I'm probably wrong on wording that I used. Please feel free to suggest better alternatives.
Thanks @nikomatsakis for mentoring 🍺
Any comments/feedback is more than welcome!
Thank you
Ipv6Addr <-> u128
Because we have `u128` now, it makes sense to add a conversion between `Ipv6Addr` and `u128` in addition to the existing one between `Ipv4Addr` and `u32`.
This shouldn't violate the existing feature gate on `u128` because you can't use the type without the feature gate, but if i have to add something, I can.
This is much nicer for callers who want to short-circuit real I/O errors
with `?`, because they can write this
if let Some(status) = foo.try_wait()? {
...
} else {
...
}
instead of this
match foo.try_wait() {
Ok(status) => {
...
}
Err(err) if err.kind() == io::ErrorKind::WouldBlock => {
...
}
Err(err) => return Err(err),
}
The original design of `try_wait` was patterned after the `Read` and
`Write` traits, which support both blocking and non-blocking
implementations in a single API. But since `try_wait` is never blocking,
it makes sense to optimize for the non-blocking case.
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/38903
Revert "Add 128-bit atomics"
This reverts commit 9903975003276cc42a1ed5f21eee292b7c62c331.
Unfortunately 128-bit atomics have broken our nightly builds (#39590) and while we investigate I'm posting a temporary revert of the PR that added them. If we can figure out a solution though before this lands I'd be happy to close!
* Moved algorithm explanation to module docs
* Added ``` before and after the examples
* Explanation of the `rbox`, `ibox` and `cbox` names
* Added docs about the breaking types to `Breaks`
* Don't disambiguate if there are multiple impls for the same type.
* Disambiguate for impls of &Foo and &mut Foo.
* Don't try to disambiguate generic types.
* Add version info to channel.rs as main.mk is no longer available
* Update `Makefile.in` used with bootstrap to not try to require `mk/util.mk`
* Update the `dist` target to avoid the makefile pieces
Update if-let.md
Calling if-let a combination of if and let is confusing, as some may be led to believe that it's a literal combination, instead of syntactic sugar added to the language as a convenience. What's there to stop someone from thinking if-let is just if and let together?
I do think this article does a good job of implying what's really going on; however, I was only able to notice this after I had begun to understand if/while-let statements, courtesy of the Rust IRC chat.
Basically, this article lacks the clarity and explicitness an inexperienced programmer like me needs in order to understand the contents fully. This is shown by my inability to understand the if-let concept from this page of the Book alone.
I think convenience, sugar, and (if-let != if + let) should all be made mention of in a clear, explicit manner. I lack confidence in my understanding of this issue, so I wrote just enough to hopefully get my thoughts across.
