"Truth passes, success `panic!`s" seems to be a typo. The closest fix would be something like "Success passes, failure `panic!`s" but to me a "comparison failure" suggests that we couldn't compare the two values at all, not that we could successfully compare them and that the result was non-equality. So I opted to rewrite the paragraph a bit. If there's a better alternative please let me know.
r? @steveklabnik
Padding and alignment are often not implemented by types and can cause confusion in the user. Per discussion with @alexcrichton, here is my PR.
/cc https://github.com/rust-lang/time/issues/98
The paper from which this example was taken made the mistake of assuming that all five philosophers are men. This it is a hypothetical example—there are no actual philosophers eating 🍝—so there is no good reason to make this assumption. Since women make up about half of the human population, all things being equal, women should represent about half of the philosophers. However, because this mistake has stood since 1985, I have changed *all* of the pronouns to be female, to make up for lost time. If someone would like to revert this patch or switch to neutral pronouns after 30 years, feel free to set your alarm clock for 2045.
r? @steveklabnik, since this is a documentation change and was created after reading http://words.steveklabnik.com/ouroboros, where I noticed this mistake.
The paper from which this example was taken made the mistake of assuming
that all five philosophers are men. This is a hypothetical
example--there are no actual philosophers eating spaghetti--so there is
no good reason to make this assumption. Since women make up about half
of the human population, all things being equal, women should represent
about half of the philosophers. However, because this mistake has stood
since 1985, I have changed *all* of the pronouns to be female, to make
up for lost time. If someone would like to revert this patch or switch
to neutral pronouns after 30 years, feel free to set your alarm clock
for 2045.
This commits adds a method to the `std::process` module to get the process
identifier of the child as a `u32`. On Windows the underlying identifier is
already a `u32`, and on Unix the type is typically defined as `c_int` (`i32` for
almost all our supported platforms), but the actually pid is normally a small
positive number.
Eventually we may add functions to load information about a process based on its
identifier or the ability to terminate a process based on its identifier, but
for now this function should enable this sort of functionality to exist outside
the standard library.
This adds strictly more information to the source files and reduces the need for customized tooling to render the book. (While this should not change the output of _rustbook_, it is very useful when rendering the sources with external tools like Pandoc.)
This only adds the language marker to "first level" code blocks (and not to code blocks in comments inside of code examples).
r? @steveklabnik
Currently the table of contents for `rustbook` doesn't signify which page you are on.
This PR adds an 'active' class to the link for the current page, and defines the CSS rule for that class to make the link underlined and bold.
Not sure about two things:
1) Is `current_page` is a good name for the function parameter? At first I thought `current_item` would be good, but then in the `walk_item` function, you'd have `item` and `current_item`.
2) For the CSS, is both bold and underline too much? At first I had it just be underlined, but that's also how the links look when they're hovered over.
The source code snippet uses `"whatever".as_bytes()` but the compilation error message uses `b"whatever"`. Both should be consistent with each other.
r? @steveklabnik
Minor tweak: the text explaining the Borrow trait talks about slices, but the example immediately following just uses a simple reference; there are no slices involved.
r? @steveklabnik
Debug overflow checks for arithmetic negation landed in #24500, at which time
the `abs` method on signed integers was changed to using `wrapping_neg` to
ensure that the function never panicked. This implied that `abs` of `INT_MIN`
would return `INT_MIN`, another negative value. When this change was back-ported
to beta, however, in #24708, the `wrapping_neg` function had not yet been
backported, so the implementation was changed in #24785 to `!self + 1`. This
change had the unintended side effect of enabling debug overflow checks for the
`abs` function. Consequently, the current state of affairs is that the beta
branch checks for overflow in debug mode for `abs` and the nightly branch does
not.
This commit alters the behavior of nightly to have `abs` always check for
overflow in debug mode. This change is more consistent with the way the standard
library treats overflow as well, and it is also not a breaking change as it's
what the beta branch currently does (albeit if by accident).
cc #25378
Debug overflow checks for arithmetic negation landed in #24500, at which time
the `abs` method on signed integers was changed to using `wrapping_neg` to
ensure that the function never panicked. This implied that `abs` of `INT_MIN`
would return `INT_MIN`, another negative value. When this change was back-ported
to beta, however, in #24708, the `wrapping_neg` function had not yet been
backported, so the implementation was changed in #24785 to `!self + 1`. This
change had the unintended side effect of enabling debug overflow checks for the
`abs` function. Consequently, the current state of affairs is that the beta
branch checks for overflow in debug mode for `abs` and the nightly branch does
not.
This commit alters the behavior of nightly to have `abs` always check for
overflow in debug mode. This change is more consistent with the way the standard
library treats overflow as well, and it is also not a breaking change as it's
what the beta branch currently does (albeit if by accident).
cc #25378
* Correctly lex CRLF in string literals
* Update `extern CRATE as NAME` syntax
* Allow leading `::` in view paths
* Allow TySums in type ascriptions and impls
* Allow macros to have visibility and attributes
* Update syntax for qualified path types and expressions
* Allow block expressions to be called () and indexed []
Some modest running-time improvements to `std::collections::BitSet` on bit-sets of varying set-membership densities. This is work originally from [here](https://github.com/rayglover/alt_collections). (Benchmarks copied below)
```
std::collections::BitSet / alt_collections::BitSet
copy_dense ... 3.08x
copy_sparse ... 4.22x
count_dense ... 11.01x
count_sparse ... 8.11x
from_bytes ... 1.47x
intersect_dense ... 6.54x
intersect_sparse ... 4.37x
union_dense ... 5.53x
union_sparse ... 5.60x
```
The exception is `from_bytes`, which I've left unaltered since the optimization is rather obscure.
Compiling with the cpu feature `popcnt` gave a further ~10% improvement on my machine, but this wasn't factored in to the benchmarks above.
Similar improvements could be made to `BitVec`, although that would probably require more substantial changes.
criticism welcome!
This adds strictly more information to the source files and reduces the
need for customized tooling to render the book.
(While this should not change the output of _rustbook_, it is very
useful when rendering the sources with external tools like Pandoc.)
Hiiii soooo I'm trying to get the reference grammar and associated tests running again, and I swear I tested before but I must have had multiple things going on when I did, because the change I made in #25137 to verify.rs is totally wrong. The RustLexer.tokens file that antlr generates has two sections:
```
EQ=1
LT=2
LE=3
EQEQ=4
NE=5
...
COMMENT=56
SHEBANG=57
UTF8_BOM=58
'='=1
'<'=2
'<='=3
'=='=4
...
```
and verify.rs is only interested in the first half-- the `continue` is to ignore the second half. In 9c7d5ae, I made it panic instead. I was trying to make sure verify.rs handled everything that might happen in the first half and complain if it didn't. That would mean the reference grammar was out of sync with at least verify.rs, if not the real grammar. But it's totally ok for verify.rs to not handle the entire second half of the file.
I'm sorry for breaking this :( Good thing these tests aren't being run regularly yet...? 😳
