In #28864, @aarzee submitted some whitespace fixes. I r+'d it. But
@retp998 noticed[1] that this file is explicitly a test of this kind of
whitespace, and so I shouldn't have changed it. This restores the old
line endings.
1: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/28864#discussion_r41332279
This is to address issue #28803 by improving some of the references to closures, to explain what they are more clearly, while hopefully still being concise.
r? @steveklabnik
This commit contains some of the changes proposed by a rustfmt invocation,
chosen based on the fairly non-deterministic metric of how much I liked the
change. I expect we will run rustfmt on this crate again later, probably
accepting more of its changes. For now, this is already an improvement over
the status-quo.
This commit contains some of the changes proposed by a rustfmt invocation,
chosen based on the fairly non-deterministic metric of how much I liked the
change. I expect we will run rustfmt on this crate again later, probably
accepting more of its changes. For now, this is already an improvement over
the status-quo.
Currently the explain command requires full erorr codes, complete with
the leading zeros and the E at the beginning. This commit changes that,
if you don't supply a full erorr code then the error number is padded
out to the required size and the E is added to the beginning.
This means that where previously you would need to write E0001, you can
now write 0001, 001, 01 or jsut 1 to refer to the same error.
In #28864, @aarzee submitted some whitespace fixes. I r+'d it. But
@retp998 noticed[1] that this file is explicitly a test of this kind of
whitespace, and so I shouldn't have changed it. This restores the old
line endings.
1: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/28864#discussion_r41332279
This turned up as part of #3170. When constructing an `undef` value to
return in the error case, we were trying to get the element type of the
Rust-level value being indexed instead of the underlying array; when
indexing a slice, that's not an array and the LLVM assertion failure
reflects this.
The regression test is a lightly altered copy of `const-array-oob.rs`.
(It is not *exactly* the text from the RFC, but the only thing it adds
is a call to a no-op function that is just an attempt to make it clear
where the potential for impl specialization comes from.)
