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]
This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as
their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to
refer to the new locations:
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
=>
```
pub use self::Foo::{A, B};
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
or
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = Foo::A;
}
```
[breaking-change]
Spring cleaning is here! In the Fall! This commit removes quite a large amount
of deprecated functionality from the standard libraries. I tried to ensure that
only old deprecated functionality was removed.
This is removing lots and lots of deprecated features, so this is a breaking
change. Please consult the deprecation messages of the deleted code to see how
to migrate code forward if it still needs migration.
[breaking-change]
Per @pnkfelix 's suggestion, using a trait to make these
field accesses more readable (and vastly more similar
to the original code.
oops fix new ast_map fix
This change propagates to many locations, but because of the
Macro Exterminator (or, more properly, the invariant that it
protects), macro invocations can't occur downstream of expansion.
This means that in librustc and librustdoc, extracting the
desired field can simply assume that it can't be a macro
invocation. Functions in ast_util abstract over this check.
This is part of the ongoing renaming of the equality traits. See #12517 for more
details. All code using Eq/Ord will temporarily need to move to Partial{Eq,Ord}
or the Total{Eq,Ord} traits. The Total traits will soon be renamed to {Eq,Ord}.
cc #12517
[breaking-change]
Similar to my recent changes to ~[T]/&[T], these changes remove the vstore abstraction and represent str types as ~(str) and &(str). The Option<uint> in ty_str is the length of the string, None if the string is dynamically sized.
Previously an `unsafe` block created by the compiler (like those in the
formatting macros) would be "ignored" if surrounded by `unsafe`, that
is, the internal unsafety would be being legitimised by the external
block:
unsafe { println!("...") } =(expansion)=> unsafe { ... unsafe { ... } }
And the code in the inner block would be using the outer block, making
it considered used (and the inner one considered unused).
This patch forces the compiler to create a new unsafe context for
compiler generated blocks, so that their internal unsafety doesn't
escape to external blocks.
Fixes#12418.
This patch replaces all `crate` usage with `krate` before introducing the
new keyword. This ensures that after introducing the keyword, there
won't be any compilation errors.
krate might not be the most expressive substitution for crate but it's a
very close abbreviation for it. `module` was already used in several
places already.
This disallows `str[0] = foo` along with `foo = &mut str[i]` to prevent strings
from being modified at runtime (except possibly through the `str` module)
Closes#8891
This way syntax extensions can generate unsafe blocks without worrying about
them generating unnecessary unsafe warnings. Perhaps a special keyword could be
added to be used in macros, but I don't think that's the best solution.
