This commit is an implementation of [RFC 503][rfc] which is a stabilization
story for the prelude. Most of the RFC was directly applied, removing reexports.
Some reexports are kept around, however:
* `range` remains until range syntax has landed to reduce churn.
* `Path` and `GenericPath` remain until path reform lands. This is done to
prevent many imports of `GenericPath` which will soon be removed.
* All `io` traits remain until I/O reform lands so imports can be rewritten all
at once to `std::io::prelude::*`.
This is a breaking change because many prelude reexports have been removed, and
the RFC can be consulted for the exact list of removed reexports, as well as to
find the locations of where to import them.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0503-prelude-stabilization.md
[breaking-change]
Closes#20068
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221
The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.
Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.
We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.
To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:
grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'
You can of course also do this by hand.
[breaking-change]
All deprecation warnings have been converted to errors. This includes
the warning for multiple cfgs on one item. We'll leave that as an error
for some period of time to ensure that all uses are updated before the
behavior changes from "or" to "and".
This unifies the `non_snake_case_functions` and `uppercase_variables` lints
into one lint, `non_snake_case`. It also now checks for non-snake-case modules.
This also extends the non-camel-case types lint to check type parameters, and
merges the `non_uppercase_pattern_statics` lint into the
`non_uppercase_statics` lint.
Because the `uppercase_variables` lint is now part of the `non_snake_case`
lint, all non-snake-case variables that start with lowercase characters (such
as `fooBar`) will now trigger the `non_snake_case` lint.
New code should be updated to use the new `non_snake_case` lint instead of the
previous `non_snake_case_functions` and `uppercase_variables` lints. All use of
the `non_uppercase_pattern_statics` should be replaced with the
`non_uppercase_statics` lint. Any code that previously contained non-snake-case
module or variable names should be updated to use snake case names or disable
the `non_snake_case` lint. Any code with non-camel-case type parameters should
be changed to use camel case or disable the `non_camel_case_types` lint.
[breaking-change]
Now that rustdoc understands proper language tags
as the code not being Rust, we can tag everything
properly.
This change tags examples in other languages by
their language. Plain notations are marked as `text`.
Console examples are marked as `console`.
Also fix markdown.rs to not highlight non-rust code.
for `~str`/`~[]`.
Note that `~self` still remains, since I forgot to add support for
`Box<self>` before the snapshot.
r? @brson or @alexcrichton or whoever
for `~str`/`~[]`.
Note that `~self` still remains, since I forgot to add support for
`Box<self>` before the snapshot.
How to update your code:
* Instead of `~EXPR`, you should write `box EXPR`.
* Instead of `~TYPE`, you should write `Box<Type>`.
* Instead of `~PATTERN`, you should write `box PATTERN`.
[breaking-change]
This allows writing code examples which pass all analysis of the compiler, but
don't actually link. A good example is examples that use extern {} blocks.
Closes#12903
This aims to cover the basics of writing safe unsafe code. At the moment
it is just designed to be a better place for the `asm!()` docs than the
detailed release notes wiki page, and I took the time to write up some
other things.
More examples are needed, especially of things that can subtly go wrong;
and vast areas of `unsafe`-ty aren't covered, e.g. `static mut`s and
thread-safety in general.
The changes are basically just because rustdoc runs tests/rendering on
more snippets by default (i.e. everything without a `notrust` tag), and
not anything significant.
