Adds a lint for `static some_lowercase_name: uint = 1;`. Warning by default since it causes confusion, e.g. `static a: uint = 1; ... let a = 2;` => `error: only refutable patterns allowed here`.
I think it's WIP - but I wanted to ask for feedback (/cc @thestinger)
I had to move the impl of FromIter for vec into extra::iter because I don't think std can depend on extra, but that's a bit messed up. Similarly some FromIter uses are gone now, not sure if this is fixable or if I made a complete mess here..
Continuation of #7430.
I haven't removed the `map` method, since the replacement `v.iter().transform(f).collect::<~[SomeType]>()` is a little ridiculous at the moment.
With these changes, exchange allocator headers are never initialized, read or written to. Removing the header will now just involve updating the code in trans using an offset to only do it if the type contained is managed.
The only thing blocking removing the initialization of the last field in the header was ~fn since it uses it to store the dynamic size/types due to captures. I temporarily switched it to a `closure_exchange_alloc` lang item (it uses the same `exchange_free`) and #7496 is filed about removing that.
Since the `exchange_free` call is now inlined all over the codebase, I don't think we should have an assert for null. It doesn't currently ever happen, but it would be fine if we started generating code that did do it. The `exchange_free` function also had a comment declaring that it must not fail, but a regular assert would cause a failure. I also removed the atomic counter because valgrind can already find these leaks, and we have valgrind bots now.
Note that exchange free does not currently print an error an out-of-memory when it aborts, because our `io` code may allocate. We could probably get away with a `#[rust_stack]` call to a `stdio` function but it would be better to make a write system call.
* stop using an atomic counter, this has a significant cost and
valgrind will already catch these leaks
* remove the extra layer of function calls
* remove the assert of non-null in free, freeing null is well defined
but throwing a failure from free will not be
* stop initializing the `prev`/`next` pointers
* abort on out-of-memory, failing won't necessarily work
I almost got locked out of my machine because I misunderstood the purpose of the function and called it with a limit of uint::max_value, which turned this function into an almost endless loop.
