The first is reduced from a case in rustdoc (originally involving an
ARC); the other is related. No committed version has gotten these
wrong, but when I broke them it showed up only in rustdoc; there was
nothing in the test suite (or the compiler!) that failed.
The general issue is that the statics and trans have to agree on order
of evaluation, or else you get use-after-move-out-of errors at runtime.
Macro invocations with path separators (e.g. foo::bar!()) now produce a sensible error message, rather than an assertion failure. Also added compile-fail test case.
Fixes#5218 ?
I've found that unused imports can often start cluttering a project after a long time, and it's very useful to keep them under control. I don't like how Go forces a compiler error by default and it can't be changed, but I certainly want to know about them so I think that a warn is a good default.
Now that the `unused_imports` lint option is a bit smarter, I think it's possible to change the default level to warn. This commit also removes all unused imports throughout the compiler and libraries (500+).
The only odd things that I ran into were that some `use` statements had to have `#[cfg(notest)]` or `#[cfg(test)]` based on where they were. The ones with `notest` were mostly in core for modules like `cmp` whereas `cfg(test)` was for tests that weren't part of a normal `mod test` module.
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
}
}
```
- Removed space between struct name and parentheses
- Fixed indentation of the rest of the file (missing end)
- Don't print parentheses for structs with no fields
- Added test
- Removed space between struct name and parentheses
- Fixed indentation of the rest of the file (missing end)
- Don't print parentheses for structs with no fields
- Added test
This removes all but 6 uses of `drop {}` from the entire codebase. Removing any of the remaining uses causes various non-trivial bugs; I'll start reporting them once this gets merged.
