- add feature gate
- add basic tests
- adjust parser to eliminate conflict between `const fn` and associated
constants
- allow `const fn` in traits/trait-impls, but forbid later in type check
- correct some merge conflicts
upgrade the inference based on expected type so that it is able to
infer the fn kind in isolation even if the full signature is not
available (and we could perhaps do better still in some cases, such as
extracting just the types of the arguments but not the return value).
This implements RFC 179 by making the pattern `&<pat>` require matching
against a variable of type `&T`, and introducing the pattern `&mut
<pat>` which only works with variables of type `&mut T`.
The pattern `&mut x` currently parses as `&(mut x)` i.e. a pattern match
through a `&T` or a `&mut T` that binds the variable `x` to have type
`T` and to be mutable. This should be rewritten as follows, for example,
for &mut x in slice.iter() {
becomes
for &x in slice.iter() {
let mut x = x;
Due to this, this is a
[breaking-change]
Closes#20496.
[breaking-change]
The `mut` in slices is now redundant. Mutability is 'inferred' from position. This means that if mutability is only obvious from the type, you will need to use explicit calls to the slicing methods.
This change makes the compiler no longer infer whether types (structures
and enumerations) implement the `Copy` trait (and thus are implicitly
copyable). Rather, you must implement `Copy` yourself via `impl Copy for
MyType {}`.
A new warning has been added, `missing_copy_implementations`, to warn
you if a non-generic public type has been added that could have
implemented `Copy` but didn't.
For convenience, you may *temporarily* opt out of this behavior by using
`#![feature(opt_out_copy)]`. Note though that this feature gate will never be
accepted and will be removed by the time that 1.0 is released, so you should
transition your code away from using it.
This breaks code like:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
Change this code to:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
impl Copy for Point2D {}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
This is the backwards-incompatible part of #13231.
Part of RFC #3.
[breaking-change]
Use the expected type to infer the argument/return types of unboxed closures. Also, in `||` expressions, use the expected type to decide if the result should be a boxed or unboxed closure (and if an unboxed closure, what kind).
This supercedes PR #19089, which was already reviewed by @pcwalton.
This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as
their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to
refer to the new locations:
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
=>
```
pub use self::Foo::{A, B};
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
or
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = Foo::A;
}
```
[breaking-change]
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 change is an implementation of [RFC 69][rfc] which adds a third kind of
global to the language, `const`. This global is most similar to what the old
`static` was, and if you're unsure about what to use then you should use a
`const`.
The semantics of these three kinds of globals are:
* A `const` does not represent a memory location, but only a value. Constants
are translated as rvalues, which means that their values are directly inlined
at usage location (similar to a #define in C/C++). Constant values are, well,
constant, and can not be modified. Any "modification" is actually a
modification to a local value on the stack rather than the actual constant
itself.
Almost all values are allowed inside constants, whether they have interior
mutability or not. There are a few minor restrictions listed in the RFC, but
they should in general not come up too often.
* A `static` now always represents a memory location (unconditionally). Any
references to the same `static` are actually a reference to the same memory
location. Only values whose types ascribe to `Sync` are allowed in a `static`.
This restriction is in place because many threads may access a `static`
concurrently. Lifting this restriction (and allowing unsafe access) is a
future extension not implemented at this time.
* A `static mut` continues to always represent a memory location. All references
to a `static mut` continue to be `unsafe`.
This is a large breaking change, and many programs will need to be updated
accordingly. A summary of the breaking changes is:
* Statics may no longer be used in patterns. Statics now always represent a
memory location, which can sometimes be modified. To fix code, repurpose the
matched-on-`static` to a `const`.
static FOO: uint = 4;
match n {
FOO => { /* ... */ }
_ => { /* ... */ }
}
change this code to:
const FOO: uint = 4;
match n {
FOO => { /* ... */ }
_ => { /* ... */ }
}
* Statics may no longer refer to other statics by value. Due to statics being
able to change at runtime, allowing them to reference one another could
possibly lead to confusing semantics. If you are in this situation, use a
constant initializer instead. Note, however, that statics may reference other
statics by address, however.
* Statics may no longer be used in constant expressions, such as array lengths.
This is due to the same restrictions as listed above. Use a `const` instead.
[breaking-change]
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/246
The implementation essentially desugars during type collection and AST
type conversion time into the parameter scheme we have now. Only fully
qualified names--e.g. `<T as Foo>::Bar`--are supported.
This allows code to access the fields of tuples and tuple structs:
let x = (1i, 2i);
assert_eq!(x.1, 2);
struct Point(int, int);
let origin = Point(0, 0);
assert_eq!(origin.0, 0);
assert_eq!(origin.1, 0);
[breaking-change]
1. The internal layout for traits has changed from (vtable, data) to (data, vtable). If you were relying on this in unsafe transmutes, you might get some very weird and apparently unrelated errors. You should not be doing this! Prefer not to do this at all, but if you must, you should use raw::TraitObject rather than hardcoding rustc's internal representation into your code.
2. The minimal type of reference-to-vec-literals (e.g., `&[1, 2, 3]`) is now a fixed size vec (e.g., `&[int, ..3]`) where it used to be an unsized vec (e.g., `&[int]`). If you want the unszied type, you must explicitly give the type (e.g., `let x: &[_] = &[1, 2, 3]`). Note in particular where multiple blocks must have the same type (e.g., if and else clauses, vec elements), the compiler will not coerce to the unsized type without a hint. E.g., `[&[1], &[1, 2]]` used to be a valid expression of type '[&[int]]'. It no longer type checks since the first element now has type `&[int, ..1]` and the second has type &[int, ..2]` which are incompatible.
3. The type of blocks (including functions) must be coercible to the expected type (used to be a subtype). Mostly this makes things more flexible and not less (in particular, in the case of coercing function bodies to the return type). However, in some rare cases, this is less flexible. TBH, I'm not exactly sure of the exact effects. I think the change causes us to resolve inferred type variables slightly earlier which might make us slightly more restrictive. Possibly it only affects blocks with unreachable code. E.g., `if ... { fail!(); "Hello" }` used to type check, it no longer does. The fix is to add a semicolon after the string.
Stop read+write expressions from expanding into two occurences
in the AST. Add a bool to indicate whether an operand in output
position if read+write or not.
Fixes#14936
