I'm working my way through TRPL beginning at "Syntax and Semantics" as was recommended in a previous version.
I'm expecting the chapter to incrementally build up my knowledge of the language section by section, assuming no prior Rust experience. So it was a bit of a speed-bump to encounter references and the vector type in a code example long before they had been defined and explained.
Another commit in this PR tries to make consistent what is a "chapter" of TRPL versus a "section." Just a nit-pick, but not thinking about that stuff keeps my focus on the important material.
My background: Python programmer since ~2000, with moderate exposure to C, C++, assembly, operating systems, and system architecture in university several years ago.
For your kind consideration, feel welcome to use or drop or rework any part of this.
Fixes#30674
The test seems to work fine and assertion passes. The test seems to also be generated from MIR (LLVM IR has footprint of MIR translator), thus I’m reenabling it.
Previously it was returning a value, mostly for the two reasons:
* Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection);
* There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows
to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)).
However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable
reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR,
since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone.
Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the
destination in desired mode.
macro future proofing rules.
(We may want to think about what this test was actually testing and
figure out a way to test it without running afoul of macro future
proofing. I spent some time trying to do this, e.g. by inserting
parenthesis in the macro input pattern, but I could not quickly get it
working, so I took this tack instead.)
After a call to `visit_def_id()` missing in `mir::visit::Visitor` but not `mir::visit::MutVisitor` has caused me a couple hours of error hunting, I decided I'd take the time to get rid of the code duplication between the two implementations.
cc @rust-lang/compiler
See RFC amendment 1384 and tracking issue 30450:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1384https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/30450
Moved old check_matcher code into check_matcher_old
combined the two checks to enable a warning cycle (where we will
continue to error if the two checks agree to reject, accept if the new
check says accept, and warn if the old check accepts but the new check
rejects).
`TypeFoldable`s can currently be visited inefficiently with an identity folder that is run only for its side effects. This creates a more efficient visitor for `TypeFoldable`s and uses it to implement `RegionEscape` and `HasProjectionTypes`, fixing cleanup issue #20298.
This is a pure refactoring.
It was recently realized that we accept defaulted type parameters everywhere, without feature gate, even though the only place that we really *intended* to accept them were on types. This PR adds a lint warning unless the "type-parameter-defaults" feature is enabled. This should eventually become a hard error.
This is a [breaking-change] in that new feature gates are required (or simply removing the defaults, which is probably a better choice as they have little effect at this time). Results of a [crater run][crater] suggest that approximately 5-15 crates are affected. I didn't do the measurement quite right so that run cannot distinguish "true" regressions from "non-root" regressions, but even the upper bound of 15 affected crates seems relatively minimal.
[crater]: https://gist.github.com/nikomatsakis/760c6a67698bd24253bf
cc @rust-lang/lang
r? @pnkfelix
Assign a default unit value to the destinations of block expressions without trailing expression,
return expressions without return value (i.e. `return;`) and conditionals without else clause.
In a straight-through read of "Syntax and Semantics," the concept of a
"reference" is used here before it is explained. Mention that and link to
the section explaining references.
In a straight-through read of "Syntax and Semantics," the first time we
meet a generic, and the first time we meet a vector, is when a Vec<T> shows
up in this example. I'm not sure that I could argue that the whole section
should appear later in the book than the ones on vectors and generics, so
instead just give the reader a brief introduction to both and a promise to
follow up later.
heap::deallocate expects a *mut u8, but here a *mut T is given as the type of the argument. This would not compile. The final code is correct, however.
Rust differs in that behavior from C: In C, the newline escapes are resolved
before anything else, and in Rust this depends on whether the backslash is
escaped itself.
A difference can be observed in the following two programs:
```c
int main()
{
printf("\\
n\n");
return 0;
}
```
```rust
fn main() {
println!("\\
n");
}
```
The first program prints two newlines, the second one prints a backslash, a
newline, the latin character n and a final newline.
