I believe this patch incorporates all expected syntax changes from extern
function reform (#3678). You can now write things like:
extern "<abi>" fn foo(s: S) -> T { ... }
extern "<abi>" mod { ... }
extern "<abi>" fn(S) -> T
The ABI for foreign functions is taken from this syntax (rather than from an
annotation). We support the full ABI specification I described on the mailing
list. The correct ABI is chosen based on the target architecture.
Calls by pointer to C functions are not yet supported, and the Rust type of
crust fns is still *u8.
Hey folks,
This patch series does some work on the json decoder, specifically with auto decoding of enums. Previously, we would take this code:
```
enum A {
B,
C(~str, uint)
}
```
and would encode a value of this enum to either `["B", []]` or `["C", ["D", 123]]`. I've changed this to `"B"` or `["C", "D", 123]`. This matches the style of the O'Caml json library [json-wheel](http://mjambon.com/json-wheel.html). I've added tests to make sure all this work.
In order to make this change, I added passing a `&[&str]` vec to `Decode::emit_enum_variant` so the json decoder can convert the name of a variant into it's position. I also changed the impl of `Encodable` for `Option<T>` to have the right upper casing.
I also did some work on the parser, which allows for `fn foo<T: ::cmp::Eq>() { ... }` statements (#5572), fixed the pretty printer properly expanding `debug!("...")` expressions, and removed `ast::expr_vstore_fixed`, which doesn't appear to be used anymore.
Because the json::Decoder uses the string variant name, we need a
way to correlate the string to the enum index. This passes in a
static &[&str] to read_enum_variant, which allows the json::Decoder
to know which branch it's trying to process.
Adds an assert_eq! macro that asserts that its two arguments are equal. Error messages can therefore be somewhat more informative than a simple assert, because the error message includes "expected" and "given" values.
the assert_eq! macro compares its arguments and fails if they're not
equal. It's more informative than fail_unless!, because it explicitly
writes the given and expected arguments on failure.
This would close#2761. I figured that if you're supplying your own custom message, you probably don't mind the stringification of the condition to not be in the message.
