There are hundreds of stackoverflow answers, reddit posts and blog
articles that link to these documents, so it's a nicer user experience
if they're not plain 404s.
The intention is to let these hang around only for relatively short
while. The alpha is likely to bring in many new users and they will be
reading the documents mentioned above.
This pulls all of our long-form documentation into a single document,
nicknamed "the book" and formally titled "The Rust Programming
Language."
A few things motivated this change:
* People knew of The Guide, but not the individual Guides. This merges
them together, helping discoverability.
* You can get all of Rust's longform documentation in one place, which
is nice.
* We now have rustbook in-tree, which can generate this kind of
documentation. While its style is basic, the general idea is much
better: a table of contents on the left-hand side.
* Rather than a almost 10,000-line guide.md, there are now smaller files
per section.
This is a work in progress, but this should get *extensive* review, so I'm putting it up early and often.
This is the start of a draft of the new 'ownership guide,' which explains ownership, borrowing, etc. I'm feeling better about this framing than last time's, but we'll see.
The "Returning Pointers" section of the pointers guide broke from the convention of putting code between backticks. This PR fixes that. There's also a little trailing whitespace I took care of.
This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as
their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to
refer to the new locations:
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
=>
```
pub use self::Foo::{A, B};
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
or
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = Foo::A;
}
```
[breaking-change]
except where trait objects are involved.
Part of issue #15349, though I'm leaving it open for trait objects.
Cross borrowing for trait objects remains because it is needed until we
have DST.
This will break code like:
fn foo(x: &int) { ... }
let a = box 3i;
foo(a);
Change this code to:
fn foo(x: &int) { ... }
let a = box 3i;
foo(&*a);
[breaking-change]
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]
Now that rustdoc understands proper language tags
as the code not being Rust, we can tag everything
properly.
This change tags examples in other languages by
their language. Plain notations are marked as `text`.
Console examples are marked as `console`.
Also fix markdown.rs to not highlight non-rust code.
This commit moves reflection (as well as the {:?} format modifier) to a new
libdebug crate, all of which is marked experimental.
This is a breaking change because it now requires the debug crate to be
explicitly linked if the :? format qualifier is used. This means that any code
using this feature will have to add `extern crate debug;` to the top of the
crate. Any code relying on reflection will also need to do this.
Closes#12019
[breaking-change]
This commit moves reflection (as well as the {:?} format modifier) to a new
libdebug crate, all of which is marked experimental.
This is a breaking change because it now requires the debug crate to be
explicitly linked if the :? format qualifier is used. This means that any code
using this feature will have to add `extern crate debug;` to the top of the
crate. Any code relying on reflection will also need to do this.
Closes#12019
[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]
The original text stated that one should only return a unique or managed pointer if you were given one in the first place. This makes it sound as if the function *should* return a unique pointer if it were given a unique pointer. The rest of the section goes on to describe why this is bad, and the example of bad code does exactly what the rule just said to do.
I reworded the original rule into a reference to the more concise rule mentioned at the bottom of the section, which helps add emphasis (a la 'it bears repeating').
The `Float` trait methods will be usable as functions via UFCS, and
we came to a consensus to remove duplicate functions like this a long
time ago.
It does still make sense to keep the duplicate functions when the trait
methods are static, unless the decision to leave out the in-scope trait
name resolution for static methods changes.
