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]
[breaking-change]
1. The internal layout for traits has changed from (vtable, data) to (data, vtable). If you were relying on this in unsafe transmutes, you might get some very weird and apparently unrelated errors. You should not be doing this! Prefer not to do this at all, but if you must, you should use raw::TraitObject rather than hardcoding rustc's internal representation into your code.
2. The minimal type of reference-to-vec-literals (e.g., `&[1, 2, 3]`) is now a fixed size vec (e.g., `&[int, ..3]`) where it used to be an unsized vec (e.g., `&[int]`). If you want the unszied type, you must explicitly give the type (e.g., `let x: &[_] = &[1, 2, 3]`). Note in particular where multiple blocks must have the same type (e.g., if and else clauses, vec elements), the compiler will not coerce to the unsized type without a hint. E.g., `[&[1], &[1, 2]]` used to be a valid expression of type '[&[int]]'. It no longer type checks since the first element now has type `&[int, ..1]` and the second has type &[int, ..2]` which are incompatible.
3. The type of blocks (including functions) must be coercible to the expected type (used to be a subtype). Mostly this makes things more flexible and not less (in particular, in the case of coercing function bodies to the return type). However, in some rare cases, this is less flexible. TBH, I'm not exactly sure of the exact effects. I think the change causes us to resolve inferred type variables slightly earlier which might make us slightly more restrictive. Possibly it only affects blocks with unreachable code. E.g., `if ... { fail!(); "Hello" }` used to type check, it no longer does. The fix is to add a semicolon after the string.
