I don't have a strong opinion on the function vs. method, but there's no point in having both. I'd like to make a `repeat` adaptor like Python/Haskell for turning a value into an infinite stream of the value, so this has to at least be renamed.
fail!() used to require owned strings but can handle static strings
now. Also, it can pass its arguments to fmt!() on its own, no need for
the caller to call fmt!() itself.
This removes the comparison to manual memory management examples,
because it requires too much existing knowledge. Implementing custom
destructors can be covered in the FFI tutorial, where `unsafe` is
already well explained.
The example with OpenSSL is incorrect, because OpenSSL is using a
static variable for the return value and isn't thread-safe.
The gettimeofday example isn't great because it's not very portable.
This is some stuff which seemed to be missing to me (though I haven't read everything yet so hope I haven't missed the relevant section).
A similar addition for borrowing handles is needed, but #5720 stumped me.
Comments welcome.
The sentence "Remember that `(float, float)` is a tuple of two floats"
sounds like you've already read a section on tuples, but that section
comes later. Changing it to "Assuming that ..." makes it more about
taking the writer's word that the syntax is how tuples are defined.
The sentence "Remember that `(float, float)` is a tuple of two floats"
sounds like you've already read a section on tuples, but that section
comes later. Changing it to "Assuming that ..." makes it more about
taking the writer's word that the syntax is how tuples are defined.
Before it wouldn't warn about unused imports in the list if something in the list was used. These commits fix that case, add a test, and remove all unused imports in lists of imports throughout the compiler.
Added notes explaining how [expr, ..expr] form is used, targeted at
individuals like me who thought it was more general and handled
dynamic repeat expressions. (I left a TODO for this section in a
comment, but perhaps that is bad form for the manual...)
Added example of `do` syntax with a function of arity > 1; yes, one
should be able to derive this from the text above it, but it is still
a useful detail to compare and contrast against the arity == 1 case.
Added example of using for expression over a uint range, since someone
who is most used to write `for(int i; i < lim; i++) { ... }` will
likely want to know how to translate that form (regardless of whether
it happens to be good style or not for their use-case).
Added note about the semi-strange meaning of "fixed size" of vectors
in the vector type section.
In struct section of tutorial, make everything more coherent and
clear by always using "struct Point". Also, do not prematurely
introduce pointers and arrays. Fixes#5240
Signed-off-by: Luca Bruno <lucab@debian.org>
For bootstrapping purposes, this commit does not remove all uses of
the keyword "pure" -- doing so would cause the compiler to no longer
bootstrap due to some syntax extensions ("deriving" in particular).
Instead, it makes the compiler ignore "pure". Post-snapshot, we can
remove "pure" from the language.
There are quite a few (~100) borrow check errors that were essentially
all the result of mutable fields or partial borrows of `@mut`. Per
discussions with Niko I think we want to allow partial borrows of
`@mut` but detect obvious footguns. We should also improve the error
message when `@mut` is erroneously reborrowed.
The fix is straight-forward, but there are several changes
while fixing the issue.
1) disallow `mut` keyword when making a new struct
In code base, there are following code,
```rust
struct Foo { mut a: int };
let a = Foo { mut a: 1 };
```
This is because of structural record, which is
deprecated corrently (see issue #3089) In structural
record, `mut` keyword should be allowd to control
mutability. But without structural record, we don't
need to allow `mut` keyword while constructing struct.
2) disallow structural records in parser level
This is related to 1). With structural records, there
is an ambiguity between empty block and empty struct
To solve the problem, I change parser to stop parsing
structural records. I think this is not a problem,
because structural records are not compiled already.
Misc. issues
There is an ambiguity between empty struct vs. empty match stmt.
with following code,
```rust
match x{} {}
```
Two interpretation is possible, which is listed blow
```rust
match (x{}) {} // matching with newly-constructed empty struct
(match x{}) {} // matching with empty enum(or struct) x
// and then empty block
```
It seems that there is no such code in rust code base, but
there is one test which uses empty match statement:
https://github.com/mozilla/rust/blob/incoming/src/test/run-pass/issue-3037.rs
All other cases could be distinguished with look-ahead,
but this can't be. One possible solution is wrapping with
parentheses when matching with an uninhabited type.
```rust
enum what { }
fn match_with_empty(x: what) -> ~str {
match (x) { //use parentheses to remove the ambiguity
}
}
```
I have seen a few people confused on how to explicitly instantiate generic functions, since the syntax differs from C++'s and C#'s, which is probably where most people asking questions about generic functions are coming from. The only use of the `::<T>` syntax in the reference right now is in the section on paths, which is possibly not where someone trying to find out about generic functions is going to start looking. The tutorial doesn't mention it at all, but I think it's all right to make the reference a tiny bit more redundant and avoid stuffing the tutorial with syntax details.
----
The "Generic functions" subsection mentions that generic functions are instantiated based on context, so let's also mention right away (with a link to the #paths section) that an explicit form is available.
This also adds an example that explicitly instantiates a generic function to the function call expression section.
The "Generic functions" subsection mentions that generic functions are
instantiated based on context, so let's also mention right away (with a
link to the #paths section) that an explicit form is available.
This also adds an example to the function call expression section that
explicitly instantiates a generic function.
LinearMap is quite a bit faster, and is fully owned/sendable without
requiring copies. The older std::map also doesn't use explicit self and
relies on mutable fields.
Changes:
- Refactor move mode computation
- Removes move mode arguments, unary move, capture clauses
(though they still parse for backwards compatibility)
- Simplify how moves are handled in trans
- Fix a number of illegal copies that cropped up
- Workaround for bug involving def-ids in params
(see details below)
Future work (I'll open bugs for these...):
- Improve error messages for moves that are due
to bindings
- Add support for moving owned content like a.b.c
to borrow check, test in trans (but I think it'll
"just work")
- Proper fix for def-ids in params
Def ids in params:
Move captures into a map instead of recomputing.
This is a workaround for a larger bug having to do with the def-ids associated
with ty_params, which are not always properly preserved when inlining. I am
not sure of my preferred fix for the larger bug yet. This current fix removes
the only code in trans that I know of which relies on ty_param def-ids, but
feels fragile.
1. In the first case, the previous code was failing during type inference
due to mismatched structure. Fix is to use the X structure at both
points in the code.
2. In the second case, a naive transcription that subsitutes *nothing*
in for the omitted statements signified by "..." will actually
compile without an error. Furthermore, any pure code could also be
substituted for the ellipsis and the code would compile (as the
text already states). So to make the example more illustrative, it
would be better to include an impure callback, which makes the
potential for aliasing immediately obvious to the reader.
1. The section on trait definitions of static methods should include
a trait with a static method in the generated document.
2. The section on trait inheritance had a expression that appears
nonsensical ("let mycircle = @mycircle") in the generated document.
The text would be clearer (IMO) if we continued with the running
example of CircleStruct.
