When using a `do` block to call an internal iterator, if you forgot to
return a value from the body, it would tell you
error: Do-block body must return bool, but returns () here. Perhaps
you meant to write a `for`-loop?
This advice no longer applies as `for` loops are now for external
iterators. Delete this message outright and let it use the default error
message
error: mismatched types: expected `bool` but found `()`
r? @thestinger
When parsing a trait function, the function must end with either `;` or
`{` (signifying a default implementation). The error message incorrectly
stated that it must be `;` or `}`.
Fixes#6610.
When using a `do` block to call an internal iterator, if you forgot to
return a value from the body, it would tell you
error: Do-block body must return bool, but returns () here. Perhaps
you meant to write a `for`-loop?
This advice no longer applies as `for` loops are now for external
iterators. Delete this message outright and let it use the default error
message
error: mismatched types: expected `bool` but found `()`
This allows the internal implementation details of the TLS keys to be
changed without requiring the update of all the users. (Or, applying
changes that *have* to be applied for the keys to work correctly, e.g.
forcing LLVM to not merge these constants.)
This allows the internal implementation details of the TLS keys to be
changed without requiring the update of all the users. (Or, applying
changes that have to be applied for the keys to work correctly, e.g.
forcing LLVM to not merge these constants.)
When parsing a trait function, the function must end with either `;` or
`{` (signifying a default implementation). The error message incorrectly
stated that it must be `;` or `}`.
Fixes#6610.
Fix#3192. r? anyone
There are 4 different new tests, to check some different scenarios for
what the parse context is at the time of recovery, becasue our
compile-fail infrastructure does not appear to handle verifying
error-recovery situations.
Differentiate between unit-like struct definition item and unit-like
struct construction in the error message.
----
More generally, outlines a more generic strategy for parse error
recovery: By committing to an expression/statement at set points in
the parser, we can then do some look-ahead to catch common mistakes
and skip over them.
One detail about this strategy is that you want to avoid emitting the
"helpful" message unless the input is reasonably close to the case of
interest. (E.g. do not warn about a potential unit struct for an
input of the form `let hmm = do foo { } { };`)
To accomplish this, I added (partial) last_token tracking; used for
`commit_stmt` support.
The check_for_erroneous_unit_struct_expecting fn returns bool to
signal whether it "made progress"; currently unused; this is meant for
use to compose several such recovery checks together in a loop.
This PR fixes#7235 and #3371, which removes trailing nulls from `str` types. Instead, it replaces the creation of c strings with a new type, `std::c_str::CString`, which wraps a malloced byte array, and respects:
* No interior nulls
* Ends with a trailing null
There are 4 different new tests, to check some different scenarios for
what the parse context is at the time of recovery, becasue our
compile-fail infrastructure does not appear to handle verifying
error-recovery situations.
Differentiate between unit-like struct definition item and unit-like
struct construction in the error message.
----
More generally, outlines a more generic strategy for parse error
recovery: By committing to an expression/statement at set points in
the parser, we can then do some look-ahead to catch common mistakes
and skip over them.
One detail about this strategy is that you want to avoid emitting the
"helpful" message unless the input is reasonably close to the case of
interest. (E.g. do not warn about a potential unit struct for an
input of the form `let hmm = do foo { } { };`)
To accomplish this, I added (partial) last_token tracking; used for
`commit_stmt` support.
The check_for_erroneous_unit_struct_expecting fn returns bool to
signal whether it "made progress"; currently unused; this is meant for
use to compose several such recovery checks together in a loop.
env! aborts compilation of the specified environment variable is not
defined and takes an optional second argument containing a custom
error message. option_env! creates an Option<&'static str> containing
the value of the environment variable.
There are no run-pass tests that check the behavior when the environment
variable is defined since the test framework doesn't support setting
environment variables at compile time as opposed to runtime. However,
both env! and option_env! are used inside of rustc itself, which should
act as a sufficient test.
Fixes#2248.
This is a fairly large rollup, but I've tested everything locally, and none of
it should be platform-specific.
r=alexcrichton (bdfdbdd)
r=brson (d803c18)
r=alexcrichton (a5041d0)
r=bstrie (317412a)
r=alexcrichton (135c85e)
r=thestinger (8805baa)
r=pcwalton (0661178)
r=cmr (9397fe0)
r=cmr (caa4135)
r=cmr (6a21d93)
r=cmr (4dc3379)
r=cmr (0aa5154)
r=cmr (18be261)
r=thestinger (f10be03)
env! aborts compilation of the specified environment variable is not
defined and takes an optional second argument containing a custom
error message. option_env! creates an Option<&'static str> containing
the value of the environment variable.
There are no run-pass tests that check the behavior when the environment
variable is defined since the test framework doesn't support setting
environment variables at compile time as opposed to runtime. However,
both env! and option_env! are used inside of rustc itself, which should
act as a sufficient test.
Close#2248
Code like this is fixed now:
```
fn foo(p: [u8, ..4]) {
match p {
[a, b, c, d] => {}
};
}
```
Invalid constructors are not reported as errors yet:
```
fn foo(p: [u8, ..4]) {
match p {
[_, _, _] => {} // this should be error
[_, _, _, _, _, .._] => {} // and this
_ => {}
}
}
```
Issue #8311 is partially fixed by this commit. Fixed-length arrays in
let statement are not yet allowed:
```
let [a, b, c] = [1, 2, 3]; // still fails
```
- Made naming schemes consistent between Option, Result and Either
- Changed Options Add implementation to work like the maybe monad (return None if any of the inputs is None)
- Removed duplicate Option::get and renamed all related functions to use the term `unwrap` instead
This is preparation for removing `@fn`.
This does *not* use default methods yet, because I don't know
whether they work. If they do, a forthcoming PR will use them.
This also changes the precedence of `as`.
Change the former repetition::
for 5.times { }
to::
do 5.times { }
.times() cannot be broken with `break` or `return` anymore; for those
cases, use a numerical range loop instead.
To be more specific:
`UPPERCASETYPE` was changed to `UppercaseType`
`type_new` was changed to `Type::new`
`type_function(value)` was changed to `value.method()`
Hi,
As noted in #6804, a pattern that contains `NaN` will never match because `NaN != NaN`. This adds a warning for such a case. The first commit handles the basic case and the second one generalizes it to more complex patterns using `walk_pat`.
`crate => Crate`
`local => Local`
`blk => Block`
`crate_num => CrateNum`
`crate_cfg => CrateConfig`
Also, Crate and Local are not wrapped in spanned<T> anymore.
If the TLS key is 0-sized, then the linux linker is apparently smart enough to
put everything at the same pointer. OSX on the other hand, will reserve some
space for all of them. To get around this, the TLS key now actuall consumes
space to ensure that it gets a unique pointer
Rust will allow to supply default methods for all four methods, but we
don't have any nice error reporting for the case where at least one
method must be implemented, but it's arbitrary which.
So in this case, we require `lt`, but allow implementing the others if needed.
It will be simpler to implement only one method for Ord, while we also
allow implementing all four Ord methods for semantics or performance
reasons.
We only supply three default methods (and not four), because don't have
any nice error reporting for the case where at least one method must be
implemented, but it's arbitrary which.
