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 breaks a fair amount of code. The typical patterns are:
* `for _ in range(0, 10)`: change to `for _ in range(0u, 10)`;
* `println!("{}", 3)`: change to `println!("{}", 3i)`;
* `[1, 2, 3].len()`: change to `[1i, 2, 3].len()`.
RFC #30. Closes#6023.
[breaking-change]
Formatting via reflection has been a little questionable for some time now, and
it's a little unfortunate that one of the standard macros will silently use
reflection when you weren't expecting it. This adds small bits of code bloat to
libraries, as well as not always being necessary. In light of this information,
this commit switches assert_eq!() to using {} in the error message instead of
{:?}.
In updating existing code, there were a few error cases that I encountered:
* It's impossible to define Show for [T, ..N]. I think DST will alleviate this
because we can define Show for [T].
* A few types here and there just needed a #[deriving(Show)]
* Type parameters needed a Show bound, I often moved this to `assert!(a == b)`
* `Path` doesn't implement `Show`, so assert_eq!() cannot be used on two paths.
I don't think this is much of a regression though because {:?} on paths looks
awful (it's a byte array).
Concretely speaking, this shaved 10K off a 656K binary. Not a lot, but sometime
significant for smaller binaries.
