Many of the modifications putting in `Box::new` calls also include a
pointer to Issue 22405, which tracks going back to `box <expr>` if
possible in the future.
(Still tried to use `Box<_>` where it sufficed; thus some tests still
have `box_syntax` enabled, as they use a mix of `box` and `Box::new`.)
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
possible. There is some amount of duplication as a result (similar to
select) -- I am not happy about this but not sure how to fix it
without deeper rewrites.
This breaks a fair amount of code. The typical patterns are:
* `for _ in range(0, 10)`: change to `for _ in range(0u, 10)`;
* `println!("{}", 3)`: change to `println!("{}", 3i)`;
* `[1, 2, 3].len()`: change to `[1i, 2, 3].len()`.
RFC #30. Closes#6023.
[breaking-change]
for `~str`/`~[]`.
Note that `~self` still remains, since I forgot to add support for
`Box<self>` before the snapshot.
How to update your code:
* Instead of `~EXPR`, you should write `box EXPR`.
* Instead of `~TYPE`, you should write `Box<Type>`.
* Instead of `~PATTERN`, you should write `box PATTERN`.
[breaking-change]
