Change the former repetition::
for 5.times { }
to::
do 5.times { }
.times() cannot be broken with `break` or `return` anymore; for those
cases, use a numerical range loop instead.
r? @graydon Package IDs can now be of the form a/b/c#FOO, where (if a/b/c is
a git repository) FOO is any tag in the repository. Non-numeric
tags only match against package IDs with the same tag, and aren't
compared linearly like numeric versions.
While I was at it, refactored the code that calls `git clone`, and segregated build output properly for different packages.
To be more specific:
`UPPERCASETYPE` was changed to `UppercaseType`
`type_new` was changed to `Type::new`
`type_function(value)` was changed to `value.method()`
The free-standing functions in f32, f64, i8, i16, i32, i64, u8, u16,
u32, u64, float, int, and uint are replaced with generic functions in
num instead.
This means that instead of having to know everywhere what the type is, like
~~~
f64::sin(x)
~~~
You can simply write code that uses the type-generic versions in num instead, this works for all types that implement the corresponding trait in num.
~~~
num::sin(x)
~~~
Note 1: If you were previously using any of those functions, just replace them
with the corresponding function with the same name in num.
Note 2: If you were using a function that corresponds to an operator, use the
operator instead.
Note 3: This is just https://github.com/mozilla/rust/pull/7090 reopened against master.
Apparently yesterday wasn't my day, and I forgot to add the changes to
all the tests apparently, and in the end forgot the docs extra much.
Please documentation, forgive me, I really do love you, I hope you
forgive me.
Next time we'll meet tutorial, I promise to bring cookies and tea. I
really want to be best-friends-forever with you, <3.
XOXO
As per https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust-dev/2013-July/004685.html
This is the initial machinery to setup the l10n infrastructure for markdown documentation.
A new "docs-l10n" target will take care of generating, updating and then building .pot and .po files, and later on the final .md.
This commit includes the .pot for all current .md docs; they can be feed directly to Mozilla Verbatim if wanted.
Please note that po4a only provides the orig.md -> .pot -> l10n.po -> l10n.md flow. The l10n.md -> l10n.html generation is not currently built in the makefile, as no language has been enabled.
These files are automatically genereated by `make docs-l10n` (via po4a),
which will also take of updating them if the original .md changes.
Signed-off-by: Luca Bruno <lucab@debian.org>
This commit add a new "docs-l10n" make target which uses po4a to:
* create .pot (PO templates) from markdown doc
* update templates and po for enabled languages
* generate translated markdown for completed (> 80%) translations
Currently, no language has been activated.
Signed-off-by: Luca Bruno <lucab@debian.org>
Adds a lint for `static some_lowercase_name: uint = 1;`. Warning by default since it causes confusion, e.g. `static a: uint = 1; ... let a = 2;` => `error: only refutable patterns allowed here`.
I removed the `static-method-test.rs` test because it was heavily based
on `BaseIter` and there are plenty of other more complex uses of static
methods anyway.
Closes#7180 and #7179.
Before, the `deriving(ToStr)` attribute was essentially `fmt!("%?")`. This changes it to recursively invoke `to_str()` on fields instead of relying on `fmt!`-style things. This seems more natural to me and what should actually be expected.
The removed test for issue #2611 is well covered by the `std::iterator`
module itself.
This adds the `count` method to `IteratorUtil` to replace `EqIter`.
After reading issue #7077, all header elements had a border. In my opinion those borders are a bit too much distraction. I tried a different approach with increasing the padding and font size, and omitting the borders.
Comparison:
http://smvv.io/rust-doc/std/hashmap.htmlhttp://static.rust-lang.org/doc/std/hashmap.html
Note: the highlighted code blocks are not caused by this commit.
I left the border of the code block / function signature as is. The reason behind that is that code blocks are really block elements, while headers are not. What do you guys think?
I was making documentation for my own little Rust project, and I was somewhat unhappy with how the documentation looked. While many of the issues are endemic to how rustdoc generates its output, you can get pretty far in making the documentation readable by using a better CSS style.
This commit alters the CSS style used in Rust's documentation in order to make the various sections stand out more. You can see an example of its usage in my own project's documentation: http://siegelord.github.io/RustGnuplot/#implementation-for-figureself-where-self. I showed it to some people on IRC and they suggested that I make a pull request here. I tested it on the only browser that matters, but also Chrome and Opera.
The confusing mixture of byte index and character count meant that every
use of .substr was incorrect; replaced by slice_chars which only uses
character indices. The old behaviour of `.substr(start, n)` can be emulated
via `.slice_from(start).slice_chars(0, n)`.
This is something that's only been briefly mentioned in the beginning of
the tutorial and all of the closure examples within this subsection
include only one expression between { and }.
This is something that's only been briefly mentioned in the beginning of
the tutorial and all of the closure examples within this subsection
include only one expression between { and }.
The "4.3 Loops" section only describes `while` and `loop`. We then see `for`
used in a code sample at the end of the "13. Vectors and strings" section,
but it's explained for the first time only in the next section --
"14. Closures".
It is worth mentioning it in "4.3 Loops".
Although in the example function `each` works as expected with
rust-0.6 (the latest release), it fails to even compile with `incoming`
rust (see test/compile-fail/bad-for-loop-2.rs). Change the function to
return a `bool` instead of `()`: this works fine with both versions of
rust, and does not misguide potential contributors.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
I don't have a strong opinion on the function vs. method, but there's no point in having both. I'd like to make a `repeat` adaptor like Python/Haskell for turning a value into an infinite stream of the value, so this has to at least be renamed.
