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]
over inherent methods accessible via more autoderefs.
This simplifies the trait matching algorithm. It breaks code like:
impl Foo {
fn foo(self) {
// before this change, this will be called
}
}
impl<'a,'b,'c> Trait for &'a &'b &'c Foo {
fn foo(self) {
// after this change, this will be called
}
}
fn main() {
let x = &(&(&Foo));
x.foo();
}
To explicitly indicate that you wish to call the inherent method, perform
explicit dereferences. For example:
fn main() {
let x = &(&(&Foo));
(***x).foo();
}
Part of #17282.
[breaking-change]
