Added notes explaining how [expr, ..expr] form is used, targeted at
individuals like me who thought it was more general and handled
dynamic repeat expressions. (I left a TODO for this section in a
comment, but perhaps that is bad form for the manual...)
Added example of `do` syntax with a function of arity > 1; yes, one
should be able to derive this from the text above it, but it is still
a useful detail to compare and contrast against the arity == 1 case.
Added example of using for expression over a uint range, since someone
who is most used to write `for(int i; i < lim; i++) { ... }` will
likely want to know how to translate that form (regardless of whether
it happens to be good style or not for their use-case).
Added note about the semi-strange meaning of "fixed size" of vectors
in the vector type section.
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.
The fix is straight-forward, but there are several changes
while fixing the issue.
1) disallow `mut` keyword when making a new struct
In code base, there are following code,
```rust
struct Foo { mut a: int };
let a = Foo { mut a: 1 };
```
This is because of structural record, which is
deprecated corrently (see issue #3089) In structural
record, `mut` keyword should be allowd to control
mutability. But without structural record, we don't
need to allow `mut` keyword while constructing struct.
2) disallow structural records in parser level
This is related to 1). With structural records, there
is an ambiguity between empty block and empty struct
To solve the problem, I change parser to stop parsing
structural records. I think this is not a problem,
because structural records are not compiled already.
Misc. issues
There is an ambiguity between empty struct vs. empty match stmt.
with following code,
```rust
match x{} {}
```
Two interpretation is possible, which is listed blow
```rust
match (x{}) {} // matching with newly-constructed empty struct
(match x{}) {} // matching with empty enum(or struct) x
// and then empty block
```
It seems that there is no such code in rust code base, but
there is one test which uses empty match statement:
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/blob/incoming/src/test/run-pass/issue-3037.rs
All other cases could be distinguished with look-ahead,
but this can't be. One possible solution is wrapping with
parentheses when matching with an uninhabited type.
```rust
enum what { }
fn match_with_empty(x: what) -> ~str {
match (x) { //use parentheses to remove the ambiguity
}
}
```
I have seen a few people confused on how to explicitly instantiate generic functions, since the syntax differs from C++'s and C#'s, which is probably where most people asking questions about generic functions are coming from. The only use of the `::<T>` syntax in the reference right now is in the section on paths, which is possibly not where someone trying to find out about generic functions is going to start looking. The tutorial doesn't mention it at all, but I think it's all right to make the reference a tiny bit more redundant and avoid stuffing the tutorial with syntax details.
----
The "Generic functions" subsection mentions that generic functions are instantiated based on context, so let's also mention right away (with a link to the #paths section) that an explicit form is available.
This also adds an example that explicitly instantiates a generic function to the function call expression section.
The "Generic functions" subsection mentions that generic functions are
instantiated based on context, so let's also mention right away (with a
link to the #paths section) that an explicit form is available.
This also adds an example to the function call expression section that
explicitly instantiates a generic function.
