This mostly involved frobbing imports between realstd, realcore, and the core
being test. Some of the imports are a little counterintuitive, but it mainly
focuses around libcore's types not implementing Show while libstd's types
implement Show.
The prospects of a generic failure function such as this existing in libcore are
bleak, due to monomorphization not working across the crate boundary, and
allocation into a ~Any is not allowed in libcore.
The argument to expect() is now &str instead of <M: Send + Any>
[breaking-change]
fail!() used to require owned strings but can handle static strings
now. Also, it can pass its arguments to fmt!() on its own, no need for
the caller to call fmt!() itself.
bare function store (which is not in fact a kind of value) but rather
ty::TraitRef. Removes many uses of fail!() and other telltale signs of
type-semantic mismatch.
cc #4183 (not a fix, but related)
For bootstrapping purposes, this commit does not remove all uses of
the keyword "pure" -- doing so would cause the compiler to no longer
bootstrap due to some syntax extensions ("deriving" in particular).
Instead, it makes the compiler ignore "pure". Post-snapshot, we can
remove "pure" from the language.
There are quite a few (~100) borrow check errors that were essentially
all the result of mutable fields or partial borrows of `@mut`. Per
discussions with Niko I think we want to allow partial borrows of
`@mut` but detect obvious footguns. We should also improve the error
message when `@mut` is erroneously reborrowed.
This will allow you to use the `+` operator to add together any two
Options, assuming that the contents of each Option likewise implement
`+`. So Some(4) + Some(1) == Some(5), and adding with None leaves the
other value unchanged.
This might be monoidic? I don't know what that word means!
This will allow you to use the + operator to add together any two
Options, assuming that the contents of each Option likewise implement
+. So Some(4) + Some(1) == Some(5), and adding with None leaves the
other value unchanged.
This might be monoidic? I don't know what that word means!
