* channel() - #[unstable]. This will likely remain forever
* sync_channel(n: int) - #[unstable with comment]. Concerns have ben raised
about the usage of the term "synchronous channel" because that generally only
applies to the case where n == 0. If n > 0 then these channels are often
referred to as buffered channels.
* Sender::send(), SyncSender::send(), Receiver::recv() - #[experimental]. These
functions directly violate the general guideline of not providing a failing
and non-failing variant. These functions were explicitly selected for being
excused from this guideline, but recent discussions have cast doubt on that
decision. These functions are #[experimental] for now until a decision is made
as they are candidates for removal.
* Sender::send_opt(), SyncSender::send_opt(), Receiver::recv_opt() - #[unstable
with a comment]. If the above no-`_opt` functions are removed, these functions
will be renamed to the non-`_opt` variants.
* SyncSender::try_send(), Receiver::try_recv() - #[unstable with a comment].
These return types of these functions to not follow general conventions. They
are consistent with the rest of the api, but not with the rest of the
libraries. Until their return types are nailed down, these functions are
#[unstable].
* Receiver::iter() - #[unstable]. This will likely remain forever.
* std::com::select - #[experimental]. The functionality is likely to remain in
some form forever, but it is highly unlikely to remain in its current form. It
is unknown how much breakage this will cause if and when the api is
redesigned, so the entire module and its components are all experimental.
* DuplexStream - #[deprecated]. This type is not composable with other channels
in terms of selection or other expected locations. It can also not be used
with ChanWriter and ChanReader, for example. Due to it being only lightly
used, and easily replaced with two channels, this type is being deprecated and
slated for removal.
* Clone for {,Sync}Sender - #[unstable]. This will likely remain forever.
* channel() - #[unstable]. This will likely remain forever
* sync_channel(n: int) - #[unstable with comment]. Concerns have ben raised
about the usage of the term "synchronous channel" because that generally only
applies to the case where n == 0. If n > 0 then these channels are often
referred to as buffered channels.
* Sender::send(), SyncSender::send(), Receiver::recv() - #[experimental]. These
functions directly violate the general guideline of not providing a failing
and non-failing variant. These functions were explicitly selected for being
excused from this guideline, but recent discussions have cast doubt on that
decision. These functions are #[experimental] for now until a decision is made
as they are candidates for removal.
* Sender::send_opt(), SyncSender::send_opt(), Receiver::recv_opt() - #[unstable
with a comment]. If the above no-`_opt` functions are removed, these functions
will be renamed to the non-`_opt` variants.
* SyncSender::try_send(), Receiver::try_recv() - #[unstable with a comment].
These return types of these functions to not follow general conventions. They
are consistent with the rest of the api, but not with the rest of the
libraries. Until their return types are nailed down, these functions are
#[unstable].
* Receiver::iter() - #[unstable]. This will likely remain forever.
* std::com::select - #[experimental]. The functionality is likely to remain in
some form forever, but it is highly unlikely to remain in its current form. It
is unknown how much breakage this will cause if and when the api is
redesigned, so the entire module and its components are all experimental.
* DuplexStream - #[deprecated]. This type is not composable with other channels
in terms of selection or other expected locations. It can also not be used
with ChanWriter and ChanReader, for example. Due to it being only lightly
used, and easily replaced with two channels, this type is being deprecated and
slated for removal.
* Clone for {,Sync}Sender - #[unstable]. This will likely remain forever.
Whew. So much here! Feedback very welcome.
This is the first part where we actually start learning things. I'd like to think I struck a good balance of explaining enough details, without getting too bogged down, and without being confusing... but of course I'd think that. 😉
As I mention in the commit comment, We probably want to move the guessing game to the rust-lang org, rather than just having it on my GitHub. Or, I could put the code inline. I think it'd be neat to have it as a project, so people can pull it down with Cargo. Until we make that decision, I'll just leave this here.
Whew! Who knew there was so much to say about variables.
We probably want to move the guessing game to the rust-lang org, rather than
just having it on my GitHub. Or, I could put the code inline. I think it'd be
neat to have it as a project, so people can pull it down with Cargo. Until we
make that decision, I'll just leave this here.
I'm going to move testing to be right AFTER the guessing game. I wanted it
to be borderline TDD, but I think that, since the first example is just one
file, it might be a bit overkill.
I'm doing this in its own commit to hopefully avoid merge conflicts.
./hello_world is not recognized on Windows.
We can type either hello_world or hello_world.exe to run the executable. I chose "hello_world.exe", which seems more conventional on Windows.
This makes the `in-header`, `markdown-before-content`, and `markdown-after-content` options available to `rustdoc` when generating documentation for any crate.
Before, these options were only available when creating documentation *from* markdown. Now, they are available when generating documentation from source.
This also updates the `rustdoc -h` output to reflect these changes. It does not update the `man rustdoc` page, nor does it update the documentation in [the `rustdoc` manual](http://doc.rust-lang.org/rustdoc.html).
floating point numbers for real.
This will break code that looks like:
let mut x = 0;
while ... {
x += 1;
}
println!("{}", x);
Change that code to:
let mut x = 0i;
while ... {
x += 1;
}
println!("{}", x);
Closes#15201.
[breaking-change]
This change registers new snapshots, allowing `*T` to be removed from the language. This is a large breaking change, and it is recommended that if compiler errors are seen that any FFI calls are audited to determine whether they should be actually taking `*mut T`.
This PR includes two big things and a bunch of little ones.
1) It enables hygiene for variables bound by 'match' expressions.
2) It fixes a bug discovered indirectly (#15221), wherein fold traversal failed to visit nonterminal nodes.
3) It fixes a small bug in the macro tutorial.
It also adds tests for the first two, and makes a bunch of small comment improvements and cleanup.
This diff will look better once bors takes care of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/15183
@brson and I talked about it, and, if I commit this skeleton, I can submit PRs for each portion, without doing this silly "builds on previous PRs" stuff, and it shouldn't cause conflicts.
This lays out what I think the guide should cover, and in what order. I haven't picked a cohesive project yet that shows all this off, but I think this progression of concepts is appropriate.
What's funny about this one is that spellcheck caught it, but for
some reason didn't give me the right suggestion, so I assumed that it
wasn't in my dictionary. Oh well.
Thanks @P1start! ❤️
This is built on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/15162 . cccae83d92 is the only new commit, you may want to look at that rather than the whole diff.
Writing our first Rust program together. This is the most crucial step, so I go to a fairly deep level of detail. Future sections will move more quickly.
This has my voice *very strongly*. I'm not sure if it's too much. I'd find it okay if I had to tone it back, and I don't want it to be _too strong_, but clinical docs are boring.
Yes, it is important to be careful, but repeated emphasis about it is probably
not helpful — it starts to sound like you came for a tutorial but found a
finger-wagging lecture.
Even after I removed a few of these comments, there are still several left in
the text. That's probably fine! A couple of mentions of how this is dangerous
and you ought to be careful may be a good reminder to the reader.
After making the edits, I reflowed the paragraphs that I had touched, using
emacs's "M-x fill-paragraph", with fill-column equal to 70.
