various bugs in `trait_id_of_impl`. The end result was that looking up
the "trait_id_of_impl" with a trait's def-id yielded the same trait
again, even though it ought to have yielded None.
This is a [breaking-change]. The new rules require that, for an impl of a trait defined
in some other crate, two conditions must hold:
1. Some type must be local.
2. Every type parameter must appear "under" some local type.
Here are some examples that are legal:
```rust
struct MyStruct<T> { ... }
// Here `T` appears "under' `MyStruct`.
impl<T> Clone for MyStruct<T> { }
// Here `T` appears "under' `MyStruct` as well. Note that it also appears
// elsewhere.
impl<T> Iterator<T> for MyStruct<T> { }
```
Here is an illegal example:
```rust
// Here `U` does not appear "under" `MyStruct` or any other local type.
// We call `U` "uncovered".
impl<T,U> Iterator<U> for MyStruct<T> { }
```
There are a couple of ways to rewrite this last example so that it is
legal:
1. In some cases, the uncovered type parameter (here, `U`) should be converted
into an associated type. This is however a non-local change that requires access
to the original trait. Also, associated types are not fully baked.
2. Add `U` as a type parameter of `MyStruct`:
```rust
struct MyStruct<T,U> { ... }
impl<T,U> Iterator<U> for MyStruct<T,U> { }
```
3. Create a newtype wrapper for `U`
```rust
impl<T,U> Iterator<Wrapper<U>> for MyStruct<T,U> { }
```
Because associated types are not fully baked, which in the case of the
`Hash` trait makes adhering to this rule impossible, you can
temporarily disable this rule in your crate by using
`#![feature(old_orphan_check)]`. Note that the `old_orphan_check`
feature will be removed before 1.0 is released.
These changes fix various problems encountered getting japaric's `at-iter` branch to work. This branch converts the `Iterator` trait to use an associated type.
This commit performs a second pass over the `std::boxed` module, taking the
following actions:
* `boxed` is now stable
* `Box` is now stable
* `BoxAny` is removed in favor of a direct `impl Box<Any>`
* `Box::downcast` remains unstable while the name of the `downcast` family of
methods is determined.
This is a breaking change due to the removal of the `BoxAny` trait (note that
the `downcast` method still exists), and existing consumers of `BoxAny` simply
need to remove the import in their modules.
[breaking-change]
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 526][rfc] which is a change to alter
the definition of the old `fmt::FormatWriter`. The new trait, renamed to
`Writer`, now only exposes one method `write_str` in order to guarantee that all
implementations of the formatting traits can only produce valid Unicode.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0526-fmt-text-writer.md
One of the primary improvements of this patch is the performance of the
`.to_string()` method by avoiding an almost-always redundant UTF-8 check. This
is a breaking change due to the renaming of the trait as well as the loss of the
`write` method, but migration paths should be relatively easy:
* All usage of `write` should move to `write_str`. If truly binary data was
being written in an implementation of `Show`, then it will need to use a
different trait or an altogether different code path.
* All usage of `write!` should continue to work as-is with no modifications.
* All usage of `Show` where implementations just delegate to another should
continue to work as-is.
[breaking-change]
Closes#20352
This pass performs a second pass of stabilization through the `std::sync`
module, avoiding modules/types that are being handled in other PRs (e.g.
mutexes, rwlocks, condvars, and channels).
The following items are now stable
* `sync::atomic`
* `sync::atomic::ATOMIC_BOOL_INIT` (was `INIT_ATOMIC_BOOL`)
* `sync::atomic::ATOMIC_INT_INIT` (was `INIT_ATOMIC_INT`)
* `sync::atomic::ATOMIC_UINT_INIT` (was `INIT_ATOMIC_UINT`)
* `sync::Once`
* `sync::ONCE_INIT`
* `sync::Once::call_once` (was `doit`)
* C == `pthread_once(..)`
* Boost == `call_once(..)`
* Windows == `InitOnceExecuteOnce`
* `sync::Barrier`
* `sync::Barrier::new`
* `sync::Barrier::wait` (now returns a `bool`)
* `sync::Semaphore::new`
* `sync::Semaphore::acquire`
* `sync::Semaphore::release`
The following items remain unstable
* `sync::SemaphoreGuard`
* `sync::Semaphore::access` - it's unclear how this relates to the poisoning
story of mutexes.
* `sync::TaskPool` - the semantics of a failing task and whether a thread is
re-attached to a thread pool are somewhat unclear, and the
utility of this type in `sync` is question with respect to
the jobs of other primitives. This type will likely become
stable or move out of the standard library over time.
* `sync::Future` - futures as-is have yet to be deeply re-evaluated with the
recent core changes to Rust's synchronization story, and will
likely become stable in the future but are unstable until
that time comes.
[breaking-change]
Doesn't yet converge on a fixed point, but generally works. A better algorithm
will come with the implementation of default type parameter fallback.
If inference fails to determine an exact integral or floating point type, it
will set the type to i32 or f64, respectively.
Closes#16968
Doesn't yet converge on a fixed point, but generally works. A better algorithm
will come with the implementation of default type parameter fallback.
If inference fails to determine an exact integral or floating point type, it
will set the type to i32 or f64, respectively.
Closes#16968
Uses the same approach as https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/17286 (and
subsequent changes making it more correct), where the visitor will skip any
pieces of the AST that are from "foreign code", where the spans don't line up,
indicating that that piece of code is due to a macro expansion.
If this breaks your code, read the error message to determine which feature
gate you should add to your crate.
Closes#18102
[breaking-change]
Uses the same approach as https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/17286 (and
subsequent changes making it more correct), where the visitor will skip any
pieces of the AST that are from "foreign code", where the spans don't line up,
indicating that that piece of code is due to a macro expansion.
If this breaks your code, read the error message to determine which feature
gate you should add to your crate, and bask in the knowledge that your code
won't mysteriously break should you try to use the 1.0 release.
Closes#18102
[breaking-change]
r? @huonw or @alexcrichton
Apparently, we have previously rejected an RFC like this. However, since then we removed `{:?}` and so without this debugging gets really difficult as soon as there is a RefCell anywhere, so I believe there is more benefit to adding these impls than there was before. By using "try_borrow" we can avoid panicing in `Show` (I think).
@ huon in response to a comment in #19254: I noticed that `drop()` checks for the ptr being null, so I checked here too. Now I am checking for both, if you're confident I can change to only checking `strong()`.
The the last argument of the `ItemDecorator::expand` method has changed to `Box<FnMut>`. Syntax extensions will break.
[breaking-change]
---
This PR removes pretty much all the remaining uses of boxed closures from the libraries. There are still boxed closures under the `test` directory, but I think those should be removed or replaced with unboxed closures at the same time we remove boxed closures from the language.
In a few places I had to do some contortions (see the first commit for an example) to work around issue #19596. I have marked those workarounds with FIXMEs. In the future when `&mut F where F: FnMut` implements the `FnMut` trait, we should be able to remove those workarounds. I've take care to avoid placing the workaround functions in the public API.
Since `let f = || {}` always gets type checked as a boxed closure, I have explictly annotated those closures (with e.g. `|&:| {}`) to force the compiler to type check them as unboxed closures.
Instead of removing the type aliases (like `GetCrateDataCb`), I could have replaced them with newtypes. But this seemed like overcomplicating things for little to no gain.
I think we should be able to remove the boxed closures from the languge after this PR lands. (I'm being optimistic here)
r? @alexcrichton or @aturon
cc @nikomatsakis
