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 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]
The existing APIs for spawning processes took strings for the command
and arguments, but the underlying system may not impose utf8 encoding,
so this is overly limiting.
The assumption we actually want to make is just that the command and
arguments are viewable as [u8] slices with no interior NULLs, i.e., as
CStrings. The ToCStr trait is a handy bound for types that meet this
requirement (such as &str and Path).
However, since the commands and arguments are often a mixture of
strings and paths, it would be inconvenient to take a slice with a
single T: ToCStr bound. So this patch revamps the process creation API
to instead use a builder-style interface, called `Command`, allowing
arguments to be added one at a time with differing ToCStr
implementations for each.
The initial cut of the builder API has some drawbacks that can be
addressed once issue #13851 (libstd as a facade) is closed. These are
detailed as FIXMEs.
Closes#11650.
[breaking-change]
The std::run module is a relic from a standard library long since past, and
there's not much use to having two modules to execute processes with where one
is slightly more convenient. This commit merges the two modules, moving lots of
functionality from std::run into std::io::process and then deleting
std::run.
New things you can find in std::io::process are:
* Process::new() now only takes prog/args
* Process::configure() takes a ProcessConfig
* Process::status() is the same as run::process_status
* Process::output() is the same as run::process_output
* I/O for spawned tasks is now defaulted to captured in pipes instead of ignored
* Process::kill() was added (plus an associated green/native implementation)
* Process::wait_with_output() is the same as the old finish_with_output()
* destroy() is now signal_exit()
* force_destroy() is now signal_kill()
Closes#2625Closes#10016
The problem was that std::run::Process::new() was unwrap()ing the result
of std::io::process::Process::new(), which returns None in the case
where the io_error condition is raised to signal failure to start the
process.
Have std::run::Process::new() similarly return an Option<run::Process>
to reflect the fact that a subprocess might have failed to start. Update
utility functions run::process_status() and run::process_output() to
return Option<ProcessExit> and Option<ProcessOutput>, respectively.
Various parts of librustc and librustpkg needed to be updated to reflect
these API changes.
closes#10754
