This commit is an implementation of [RFC 565][rfc] which is a stabilization of
the `std::fmt` module and the implementations of various formatting traits.
Specifically, the following changes were performed:
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0565-show-string-guidelines.md
* The `Show` trait is now deprecated, it was renamed to `Debug`
* The `String` trait is now deprecated, it was renamed to `Display`
* Many `Debug` and `Display` implementations were audited in accordance with the
RFC and audited implementations now have the `#[stable]` attribute
* Integers and floats no longer print a suffix
* Smart pointers no longer print details that they are a smart pointer
* Paths with `Debug` are now quoted and escape characters
* The `unwrap` methods on `Result` now require `Display` instead of `Debug`
* The `Error` trait no longer has a `detail` method and now requires that
`Display` must be implemented. With the loss of `String`, this has moved into
libcore.
* `impl<E: Error> FromError<E> for Box<Error>` now exists
* `derive(Show)` has been renamed to `derive(Debug)`. This is not currently
warned about due to warnings being emitted on stage1+
While backwards compatibility is attempted to be maintained with a blanket
implementation of `Display` for the old `String` trait (and the same for
`Show`/`Debug`) this is still a breaking change due to primitives no longer
implementing `String` as well as modifications such as `unwrap` and the `Error`
trait. Most code is fairly straightforward to update with a rename or tweaks of
method calls.
[breaking-change]
Closes#21436
fmt::Show is for debugging, and can and should be implemented for
all public types. This trait is used with `{:?}` syntax. There still
exists #[derive(Show)].
fmt::String is for types that faithfully be represented as a String.
Because of this, there is no way to derive fmt::String, all
implementations must be purposeful. It is used by the default format
syntax, `{}`.
This will break most instances of `{}`, since that now requires the type
to impl fmt::String. In most cases, replacing `{}` with `{:?}` is the
correct fix. Types that were being printed specifically for users should
receive a fmt::String implementation to fix this.
Part of #20013
[breaking-change]
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]
This is part of the ongoing renaming of the equality traits. See #12517 for more
details. All code using Eq/Ord will temporarily need to move to Partial{Eq,Ord}
or the Total{Eq,Ord} traits. The Total traits will soon be renamed to {Eq,Ord}.
cc #12517
[breaking-change]
This commit moves reflection (as well as the {:?} format modifier) to a new
libdebug crate, all of which is marked experimental.
This is a breaking change because it now requires the debug crate to be
explicitly linked if the :? format qualifier is used. This means that any code
using this feature will have to add `extern crate debug;` to the top of the
crate. Any code relying on reflection will also need to do this.
Closes#12019
[breaking-change]
Formatting via reflection has been a little questionable for some time now, and
it's a little unfortunate that one of the standard macros will silently use
reflection when you weren't expecting it. This adds small bits of code bloat to
libraries, as well as not always being necessary. In light of this information,
this commit switches assert_eq!() to using {} in the error message instead of
{:?}.
In updating existing code, there were a few error cases that I encountered:
* It's impossible to define Show for [T, ..N]. I think DST will alleviate this
because we can define Show for [T].
* A few types here and there just needed a #[deriving(Show)]
* Type parameters needed a Show bound, I often moved this to `assert!(a == b)`
* `Path` doesn't implement `Show`, so assert_eq!() cannot be used on two paths.
I don't think this is much of a regression though because {:?} on paths looks
awful (it's a byte array).
Concretely speaking, this shaved 10K off a 656K binary. Not a lot, but sometime
significant for smaller binaries.
