This change makes the compiler no longer infer whether types (structures
and enumerations) implement the `Copy` trait (and thus are implicitly
copyable). Rather, you must implement `Copy` yourself via `impl Copy for
MyType {}`.
A new warning has been added, `missing_copy_implementations`, to warn
you if a non-generic public type has been added that could have
implemented `Copy` but didn't.
For convenience, you may *temporarily* opt out of this behavior by using
`#![feature(opt_out_copy)]`. Note though that this feature gate will never be
accepted and will be removed by the time that 1.0 is released, so you should
transition your code away from using it.
This breaks code like:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
Change this code to:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
impl Copy for Point2D {}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
This is the backwards-incompatible part of #13231.
Part of RFC #3.
[breaking-change]
Now that we have an overloaded comparison (`==`) operator, and that `Vec`/`String` deref to `[T]`/`str` on method calls, many `as_slice()`/`as_mut_slice()`/`to_string()` calls have become redundant. This patch removes them. These were the most common patterns:
- `assert_eq(test_output.as_slice(), "ground truth")` -> `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth")`
- `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth".to_string())` -> `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth")`
- `vec.as_mut_slice().sort()` -> `vec.sort()`
- `vec.as_slice().slice(from, to)` -> `vec.slice(from_to)`
---
Note that e.g. `a_string.push_str(b_string.as_slice())` has been left untouched in this PR, since we first need to settle down whether we want to favor the `&*b_string` or the `b_string[]` notation.
This is rebased on top of #19167
cc @alexcrichton @aturon
As an example of what this changes, the following code:
```rust
let x: [int ..4];
```
Currently spits out ‘expected `]`, found `..`’. However, a comma would also be valid there, as would a number of other tokens. This change adjusts the parser to produce more accurate errors, so that that example now produces ‘expected one of `(`, `+`, `,`, `::`, or `]`, found `..`’.
(Thanks to cramer on IRC for pointing out this problem with diagnostics.)
The only other place I know of that doesn’t allow trailing commas is closure types (#19414), and those are a bit tricky to fix (I suspect it might be impossible without infinite lookahead) so I didn’t implement that in this patch. There are other issues surrounding closure type parsing anyway, in particular #19410.
As an example of what this changes, the following code:
let x: [int ..4];
Currently spits out ‘expected `]`, found `..`’. However, a comma would also be
valid there, as would a number of other tokens. This change adjusts the parser
to produce more accurate errors, so that that example now produces ‘expected one
of `(`, `+`, `,`, `::`, or `]`, found `..`’.
Implements RFC 438.
Fixes#19092.
This is a [breaking-change]: change types like `&Foo+Send` or `&'a mut Foo+'a` to `&(Foo+Send)` and `&'a mut (Foo+'a)`, respectively.
r? @brson
This commit removes the `std::local_data` module in favor of a new
`std::thread_local` module providing thread local storage. The module provides
two variants of TLS: one which owns its contents and one which is based on
scoped references. Each implementation has pros and cons listed in the
documentation.
Both flavors have accessors through a function called `with` which yield a
reference to a closure provided. Both flavors also panic if a reference cannot
be yielded and provide a function to test whether an access would panic or not.
This is an implementation of [RFC 461][rfc] and full details can be found in
that RFC.
This is a breaking change due to the removal of the `std::local_data` module.
All users can migrate to the new thread local system like so:
thread_local!(static FOO: Rc<RefCell<Option<T>>> = Rc::new(RefCell::new(None)))
The old `local_data` module inherently contained the `Rc<RefCell<Option<T>>>` as
an implementation detail which must now be explicitly stated by users.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/461
[breaking-change]
This breaks code like
```
let t = (42i, 42i);
... t.0::<int> ...;
```
Change this code to not contain an unused type parameter. For example:
```
let t = (42i, 42i);
... t.0 ...;
```
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19096
[breaking-change]
Use the expected type to infer the argument/return types of unboxed closures. Also, in `||` expressions, use the expected type to decide if the result should be a boxed or unboxed closure (and if an unboxed closure, what kind).
This supercedes PR #19089, which was already reviewed by @pcwalton.
Futureproof Rust for fancier suffixed literals. The Rust compiler tokenises a literal followed immediately (no whitespace) by an identifier as a single token: (for example) the text sequences `"foo"bar`, `1baz` and `1u1024` are now a single token rather than the pairs `"foo"` `bar`, `1` `baz` and `1u` `1024` respectively.
The compiler rejects all such suffixes in the parser, except for the 12 numeric suffixes we have now.
I'm fairly sure this will affect very few programs, since it's not currently legal to have `<literal><identifier>` in a Rust program, except in a macro invocation. Any macro invocation relying on this behaviour can simply separate the two tokens with whitespace: `foo!("bar"baz)` becomes `foo!("bar" baz)`.
This implements [RFC 463](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0463-future-proof-literal-suffixes.md), and so closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19088.
This adds an optional suffix at the end of a literal token:
`"foo"bar`. An actual use of a suffix in a expression (or other literal
that the compiler reads) is rejected in the parser.
This doesn't switch the handling of numbers to this system, and doesn't
outlaw illegal suffixes for them yet.
