I ran across a comma splice.
I didn't set the "note:" off inside parenthesis. I looked around in other places and saw it both ways, but without surrounding parenthesis seemed to be the more common convention followed elsewhere in the docs. Let me know if you have an overriding preference about that and I'll change it.
r? @steveklabnik
This syncs the _Crates and Modules_ chapter of the book with current output:
* the runs are supposed to be in the project’s directory,
* `rustc` has slightly different error messages (and things like macro line:col numbers),
* Cargo now compiles things into `target/debug`.
This is the first use of `box`. It's an unstable feature and also isn't
consistent with the use of `Box` in the "original" code above it.
r? @steveklabnik
This is a deprecated attribute that is slated for removal, and it also affects
all implementors of the trait. This commit removes the attribute and fixes up
implementors accordingly. The primary implementation which was lost was the
ability to compare `&[T]` and `Vec<T>` (in that order).
This change also modifies the `assert_eq!` macro to not consider both directions
of equality, only the one given in the left/right forms to the macro. This
modification is motivated due to the fact that `&[T] == Vec<T>` no longer
compiles, causing hundreds of errors in unit tests in the standard library (and
likely throughout the community as well).
Closes#19470
[breaking-change]
This commit cleans out a large amount of deprecated APIs from the standard
library and some of the facade crates as well, updating all users in the
compiler and in tests as it goes along.
This is a deprecated attribute that is slated for removal, and it also affects
all implementors of the trait. This commit removes the attribute and fixes up
implementors accordingly. The primary implementation which was lost was the
ability to compare `&[T]` and `Vec<T>` (in that order).
This change also modifies the `assert_eq!` macro to not consider both directions
of equality, only the one given in the left/right forms to the macro. This
modification is motivated due to the fact that `&[T] == Vec<T>` no longer
compiles, causing hundreds of errors in unit tests in the standard library (and
likely throughout the community as well).
cc #19470
[breaking-change]
The documentation says that 'The current convention is to use the `test` module
to hold your "unit-style"' but then defines the module as "tests" instead.
Also in the output of the command we can see:
```
test test::it_works ... ok
```
So I think the name of the module was meant to be "test"
The documentation says that 'The current convention is to use the `test` module
to hold your "unit-style"' but then defines the module as "tests" instead.
This was originally used to set up the guessing game, but that no longer
exists. This version uses `old_io`, and updating it involves talking
about `&mut` and such, which we haven't covered yet. So, for now, let's
just remove it.
Fixes#23760
