This is preparation for removing `@fn`.
This does *not* use default methods yet, because I don't know
whether they work. If they do, a forthcoming PR will use them.
This also changes the precedence of `as`.
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.
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
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.
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>
This removes the comparison to manual memory management examples,
because it requires too much existing knowledge. Implementing custom
destructors can be covered in the FFI tutorial, where `unsafe` is
already well explained.
