https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221
The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.
Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.
We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.
To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:
grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'
You can of course also do this by hand.
[breaking-change]
This commit moves all logging out of the standard library into an external
crate. This crate is the new crate which is responsible for all logging macros
and logging implementation. A few reasons for this change are:
* The crate map has always been a bit of a code smell among rust programs. It
has difficulty being loaded on almost all platforms, and it's used almost
exclusively for logging and only logging. Removing the crate map is one of the
end goals of this movement.
* The compiler has a fair bit of special support for logging. It has the
__log_level() expression as well as generating a global word per module
specifying the log level. This is unfairly favoring the built-in logging
system, and is much better done purely in libraries instead of the compiler
itself.
* Initialization of logging is much easier to do if there is no reliance on a
magical crate map being available to set module log levels.
* If the logging library can be written outside of the standard library, there's
no reason that it shouldn't be. It's likely that we're not going to build the
highest quality logging library of all time, so third-party libraries should
be able to provide just as high-quality logging systems as the default one
provided in the rust distribution.
With a migration such as this, the change does not come for free. There are some
subtle changes in the behavior of liblog vs the previous logging macros:
* The core change of this migration is that there is no longer a physical
log-level per module. This concept is still emulated (it is quite useful), but
there is now only a global log level, not a local one. This global log level
is a reflection of the maximum of all log levels specified. The previously
generated logging code looked like:
if specified_level <= __module_log_level() {
println!(...)
}
The newly generated code looks like:
if specified_level <= ::log::LOG_LEVEL {
if ::log::module_enabled(module_path!()) {
println!(...)
}
}
Notably, the first layer of checking is still intended to be "super fast" in
that it's just a load of a global word and a compare. The second layer of
checking is executed to determine if the current module does indeed have
logging turned on.
This means that if any module has a debug log level turned on, all modules
with debug log levels get a little bit slower (they all do more expensive
dynamic checks to determine if they're turned on or not).
Semantically, this migration brings no change in this respect, but
runtime-wise, this will have a perf impact on some code.
* A `RUST_LOG=::help` directive will no longer print out a list of all modules
that can be logged. This is because the crate map will no longer specify the
log levels of all modules, so the list of modules is not known. Additionally,
warnings can no longer be provided if a malformed logging directive was
supplied.
The new "hello world" for logging looks like:
#[phase(syntax, link)]
extern crate log;
fn main() {
debug!("Hello, world!");
}
While it is still technically possible to test stage 0, it is not part of any
of the main testing rules and maintaining xfail-stage0 is a chore. Nobody
should worry about how tests fare in stage0.
I noticed that typestate was being lazier than it should be,
because it was only checking typestate for statements and
top-level expression (that is, the expression in a stmt_expr, but
not any subexpressions). So I rewrote the checks in tstate/ck.rs
to use walk, which exposed a few bugs in typestate that I fixed.
Also added some more test cases for if-check.
