The documentation says that 'The current convention is to use the `test` module
to hold your "unit-style"' but then defines the module as "tests" instead.
Also in the output of the command we can see:
```
test test::it_works ... ok
```
So I think the name of the module was meant to be "test"
The documentation says that 'The current convention is to use the `test` module
to hold your "unit-style"' but then defines the module as "tests" instead.
This was originally used to set up the guessing game, but that no longer
exists. This version uses `old_io`, and updating it involves talking
about `&mut` and such, which we haven't covered yet. So, for now, let's
just remove it.
Fixes#23760
curl's progress meter would otherwise interfere with sudo's password prompt.
In addition, add the -f flag to make sure 4xx status codes are treated as errors.
r? @brson
Fixes#11794
I mostly removed superflous examples which use the standard library.
I have one more quesiton here though: threads. They're mostly a library thing, at this point, right?
This attribute has been deprecated in favor of #[should_panic]. This also
updates rustdoc to no longer accept the `should_fail` directive and instead
renames it to `should_panic`.
Was reading the 'Looping' section of the book and was puzzled why the last example uses `0u32..10` when the others don't. Tried it out without and it seems to work, so I figured it should just be `0..10`. If there is a reason it needs to be `0u32..10` it should be explained in the text (I'd offer to do it but I have no idea).
r? @steveklabnik
This attribute has been deprecated in favor of #[should_panic]. This also
updates rustdoc to no longer accept the `should_fail` directive and instead
renames it to `should_panic`.
Reject specialized Drop impls.
See Issue #8142 for discussion.
This makes it illegal for a Drop impl to be more specialized than the original item.
So for example, all of the following are now rejected (when they would have been blindly accepted before):
```rust
struct S<A> { ... };
impl Drop for S<i8> { ... } // error: specialized to concrete type
struct T<'a> { ... };
impl Drop for T<'static> { ... } // error: specialized to concrete region
struct U<A> { ... };
impl<A:Clone> Drop for U<A> { ... } // error: added extra type requirement
struct V<'a,'b>;
impl<'a,'b:a> Drop for V<'a,'b> { ... } // error: added extra region requirement
```
Due to examples like the above, this is a [breaking-change].
(The fix is to either remove the specialization from the `Drop` impl, or to transcribe the requirements into the struct/enum definition; examples of both are shown in the PR's fixed to `libstd`.)
----
This is likely to be the last thing blocking the removal of the `#[unsafe_destructor]` attribute.
Fix#8142Fix#23584
I assume since both shifts say the same thing, I should fix both of them, but then I realized I don't strictly know about left shift.
Fixes#23421
r? @pnkfelix
