`from_utf8_lossy()` takes a byte vector and produces a `~str`, converting
any invalid UTF-8 sequence into the U+FFFD REPLACEMENT CHARACTER.
The replacement follows the guidelines in §5.22 Best Practice for U+FFFD
Substitution from the Unicode Standard (Version 6.2)[1], which also
matches the WHATWG rules for utf-8 decoding[2].
[1]: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ch05.pdf
[2]: http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/#utf-8Closes#9516.
Part of #8784
Changes:
- Everything labeled under collections in libextra has been moved into a new crate 'libcollection'.
- Renamed container.rs to deque.rs, since it was no longer 'container traits for extra', just a deque trait.
- Crates that depend on the collections have been updated and dependencies sorted.
- I think I changed all the imports in the tests to make sure it works. I'm not entirely sure, as near the end of the tests there was yet another `use` that I forgot to change, and when I went to try again, it started rebuilding everything, which I don't currently have time for.
There will probably be incompatibility between this and the other pull requests that are splitting up libextra. I'm happy to rebase once those have been merged.
The tests I didn't get to run should pass. But I can redo them another time if they don't.
from_utf8_lossy() takes a byte vector and produces a ~str, converting
any invalid UTF-8 sequence into the U+FFFD REPLACEMENT CHARACTER.
The replacement follows the guidelines in §5.22 Best Practice for U+FFFD
Substitution from the Unicode Standard (Version 6.2)[1], which also
matches the WHATWG rules for utf-8 decoding[2].
[1]: http://www.unicode.org/versions/Unicode6.2.0/ch05.pdf
[2]: http://encoding.spec.whatwg.org/#utf-8
This has been a long time coming. Conditions in rust were initially envisioned
as being a good alternative to error code return pattern. The idea is that all
errors are fatal-by-default, and you can opt-in to handling the error by
registering an error handler.
While sounding nice, conditions ended up having some unforseen shortcomings:
* Actually handling an error has some very awkward syntax:
let mut result = None;
let mut answer = None;
io::io_error::cond.trap(|e| { result = Some(e) }).inside(|| {
answer = Some(some_io_operation());
});
match result {
Some(err) => { /* hit an I/O error */ }
None => {
let answer = answer.unwrap();
/* deal with the result of I/O */
}
}
This pattern can certainly use functions like io::result, but at its core
actually handling conditions is fairly difficult
* The "zero value" of a function is often confusing. One of the main ideas
behind using conditions was to change the signature of I/O functions. Instead
of read_be_u32() returning a result, it returned a u32. Errors were notified
via a condition, and if you caught the condition you understood that the "zero
value" returned is actually a garbage value. These zero values are often
difficult to understand, however.
One case of this is the read_bytes() function. The function takes an integer
length of the amount of bytes to read, and returns an array of that size. The
array may actually be shorter, however, if an error occurred.
Another case is fs::stat(). The theoretical "zero value" is a blank stat
struct, but it's a little awkward to create and return a zero'd out stat
struct on a call to stat().
In general, the return value of functions that can raise error are much more
natural when using a Result as opposed to an always-usable zero-value.
* Conditions impose a necessary runtime requirement on *all* I/O. In theory I/O
is as simple as calling read() and write(), but using conditions imposed the
restriction that a rust local task was required if you wanted to catch errors
with I/O. While certainly an surmountable difficulty, this was always a bit of
a thorn in the side of conditions.
* Functions raising conditions are not always clear that they are raising
conditions. This suffers a similar problem to exceptions where you don't
actually know whether a function raises a condition or not. The documentation
likely explains, but if someone retroactively adds a condition to a function
there's nothing forcing upstream users to acknowledge a new point of task
failure.
* Libaries using I/O are not guaranteed to correctly raise on conditions when an
error occurs. In developing various I/O libraries, it's much easier to just
return `None` from a read rather than raising an error. The silent contract of
"don't raise on EOF" was a little difficult to understand and threw a wrench
into the answer of the question "when do I raise a condition?"
Many of these difficulties can be overcome through documentation, examples, and
general practice. In the end, all of these difficulties added together ended up
being too overwhelming and improving various aspects didn't end up helping that
much.
A result-based I/O error handling strategy also has shortcomings, but the
cognitive burden is much smaller. The tooling necessary to make this strategy as
usable as conditions were is much smaller than the tooling necessary for
conditions.
Perhaps conditions may manifest themselves as a future entity, but for now
we're going to remove them from the standard library.
Closes#9795Closes#8968
This has been a long time coming. Conditions in rust were initially envisioned
as being a good alternative to error code return pattern. The idea is that all
errors are fatal-by-default, and you can opt-in to handling the error by
registering an error handler.
While sounding nice, conditions ended up having some unforseen shortcomings:
* Actually handling an error has some very awkward syntax:
let mut result = None;
let mut answer = None;
io::io_error::cond.trap(|e| { result = Some(e) }).inside(|| {
answer = Some(some_io_operation());
});
match result {
Some(err) => { /* hit an I/O error */ }
None => {
let answer = answer.unwrap();
/* deal with the result of I/O */
}
}
This pattern can certainly use functions like io::result, but at its core
actually handling conditions is fairly difficult
* The "zero value" of a function is often confusing. One of the main ideas
behind using conditions was to change the signature of I/O functions. Instead
of read_be_u32() returning a result, it returned a u32. Errors were notified
via a condition, and if you caught the condition you understood that the "zero
value" returned is actually a garbage value. These zero values are often
difficult to understand, however.
One case of this is the read_bytes() function. The function takes an integer
length of the amount of bytes to read, and returns an array of that size. The
array may actually be shorter, however, if an error occurred.
Another case is fs::stat(). The theoretical "zero value" is a blank stat
struct, but it's a little awkward to create and return a zero'd out stat
struct on a call to stat().
In general, the return value of functions that can raise error are much more
natural when using a Result as opposed to an always-usable zero-value.
* Conditions impose a necessary runtime requirement on *all* I/O. In theory I/O
is as simple as calling read() and write(), but using conditions imposed the
restriction that a rust local task was required if you wanted to catch errors
with I/O. While certainly an surmountable difficulty, this was always a bit of
a thorn in the side of conditions.
* Functions raising conditions are not always clear that they are raising
conditions. This suffers a similar problem to exceptions where you don't
actually know whether a function raises a condition or not. The documentation
likely explains, but if someone retroactively adds a condition to a function
there's nothing forcing upstream users to acknowledge a new point of task
failure.
* Libaries using I/O are not guaranteed to correctly raise on conditions when an
error occurs. In developing various I/O libraries, it's much easier to just
return `None` from a read rather than raising an error. The silent contract of
"don't raise on EOF" was a little difficult to understand and threw a wrench
into the answer of the question "when do I raise a condition?"
Many of these difficulties can be overcome through documentation, examples, and
general practice. In the end, all of these difficulties added together ended up
being too overwhelming and improving various aspects didn't end up helping that
much.
A result-based I/O error handling strategy also has shortcomings, but the
cognitive burden is much smaller. The tooling necessary to make this strategy as
usable as conditions were is much smaller than the tooling necessary for
conditions.
Perhaps conditions may manifest themselves as a future entity, but for now
we're going to remove them from the standard library.
Closes#9795Closes#8968
This commit removes the -c, --emit-llvm, -s, --rlib, --dylib, --staticlib,
--lib, and --bin flags from rustc, adding the following flags:
* --emit=[asm,ir,bc,obj,link]
* --crate-type=[dylib,rlib,staticlib,bin,lib]
The -o option has also been redefined to be used for *all* flavors of outputs.
This means that we no longer ignore it for libraries. The --out-dir remains the
same as before.
The new logic for files that rustc emits is as follows:
1. Output types are dictated by the --emit flag. The default value is
--emit=link, and this option can be passed multiple times and have all options
stacked on one another.
2. Crate types are dictated by the --crate-type flag and the #[crate_type]
attribute. The flags can be passed many times and stack with the crate
attribute.
3. If the -o flag is specified, and only one output type is specified, the
output will be emitted at this location. If more than one output type is
specified, then the filename of -o is ignored, and all output goes in the
directory that -o specifies. The -o option always ignores the --out-dir
option.
4. If the --out-dir flag is specified, all output goes in this directory.
5. If -o and --out-dir are both not present, all output goes in the directory of
the crate file.
6. When multiple output types are specified, the filestem of all output is the
same as the name of the CrateId (derived from a crate attribute or from the
filestem of the crate file).
Closes#7791Closes#11056Closes#11667
This commit removes the -c, --emit-llvm, -s, --rlib, --dylib, --staticlib,
--lib, and --bin flags from rustc, adding the following flags:
* --emit=[asm,ir,bc,obj,link]
* --crate-type=[dylib,rlib,staticlib,bin,lib]
The -o option has also been redefined to be used for *all* flavors of outputs.
This means that we no longer ignore it for libraries. The --out-dir remains the
same as before.
The new logic for files that rustc emits is as follows:
1. Output types are dictated by the --emit flag. The default value is
--emit=link, and this option can be passed multiple times and have all
options stacked on one another.
2. Crate types are dictated by the --crate-type flag and the #[crate_type]
attribute. The flags can be passed many times and stack with the crate
attribute.
3. If the -o flag is specified, and only one output type is specified, the
output will be emitted at this location. If more than one output type is
specified, then the filename of -o is ignored, and all output goes in the
directory that -o specifies. The -o option always ignores the --out-dir
option.
4. If the --out-dir flag is specified, all output goes in this directory.
5. If -o and --out-dir are both not present, all output goes in the current
directory of the process.
6. When multiple output types are specified, the filestem of all output is the
same as the name of the CrateId (derived from a crate attribute or from the
filestem of the crate file).
Closes#7791Closes#11056Closes#11667
A weak pointer inside itself will have its destructor run when the last
strong pointer to that data disappears, so we need to make sure that the
Weak and Rc destructors don't duplicate work (i.e. freeing).
By making the Rcs effectively take a weak pointer, we ensure that no
Weak destructor will free the pointer while still ensuring that Weak
pointers can't be upgraded to strong ones as the destructors run.
This approach of starting weak at 1 is what libstdc++ does.
Fixes#12046.
I have a hunch this just deadlocked the windows bots. Due to UDP being a lossy
protocol, I don't think we can guarantee that the server can receive both
packets, so just listen for one of them.
I have a hunch this just deadlocked the windows bots. Due to UDP being a lossy
protocol, I don't think we can guarantee that the server can receive both
packets, so just listen for one of them.
A weak pointer inside itself will have its destructor run when the last
strong pointer to that data disappears, so we need to make sure that the
Weak and Rc destructors don't duplicate work (i.e. freeing).
By making the Rcs effectively take a weak pointer, we ensure that no
Weak destructor will free the pointer while still ensuring that Weak
pointers can't be upgraded to strong ones as the destructors run.
This approach of starting weak at 1 is what libstdc++ does.
Fixes#12046.
This is part of the overall strategy I would like to take when approaching
issue #11165. The only two I/O objects that reasonably want to be "split" are
the network stream objects. Everything else can be "split" by just creating
another version.
The initial idea I had was the literally split the object into a reader and a
writer half, but that would just introduce lots of clutter with extra interfaces
that were a little unnnecssary, or it would return a ~Reader and a ~Writer which
means you couldn't access things like the remote peer name or local socket name.
The solution I found to be nicer was to just clone the stream itself. The clone
is just a clone of the handle, nothing fancy going on at the kernel level.
Conceptually I found this very easy to wrap my head around (everything else
supports clone()), and it solved the "split" problem at the same time.
The cloning support is pretty specific per platform/lib combination:
* native/win32 - uses some specific WSA apis to clone the SOCKET handle
* native/unix - uses dup() to get another file descriptor
* green/all - This is where things get interesting. When we support full clones
of a handle, this implies that we're allowing simultaneous writes
and reads to happen. It turns out that libuv doesn't support two
simultaneous reads or writes of the same object. It does support
*one* read and *one* write at the same time, however. Some extra
infrastructure was added to just block concurrent writers/readers
until the previous read/write operation was completed.
I've added tests to the tcp/unix modules to make sure that this functionality is
supported everywhere.
This is part of the overall strategy I would like to take when approaching
issue #11165. The only two I/O objects that reasonably want to be "split" are
the network stream objects. Everything else can be "split" by just creating
another version.
The initial idea I had was the literally split the object into a reader and a
writer half, but that would just introduce lots of clutter with extra interfaces
that were a little unnnecssary, or it would return a ~Reader and a ~Writer which
means you couldn't access things like the remote peer name or local socket name.
The solution I found to be nicer was to just clone the stream itself. The clone
is just a clone of the handle, nothing fancy going on at the kernel level.
Conceptually I found this very easy to wrap my head around (everything else
supports clone()), and it solved the "split" problem at the same time.
The cloning support is pretty specific per platform/lib combination:
* native/win32 - uses some specific WSA apis to clone the SOCKET handle
* native/unix - uses dup() to get another file descriptor
* green/all - This is where things get interesting. When we support full clones
of a handle, this implies that we're allowing simultaneous writes
and reads to happen. It turns out that libuv doesn't support two
simultaneous reads or writes of the same object. It does support
*one* read and *one* write at the same time, however. Some extra
infrastructure was added to just block concurrent writers/readers
until the previous read/write operation was completed.
I've added tests to the tcp/unix modules to make sure that this functionality is
supported everywhere.
