Formatting via reflection has been a little questionable for some time now, and
it's a little unfortunate that one of the standard macros will silently use
reflection when you weren't expecting it. This adds small bits of code bloat to
libraries, as well as not always being necessary. In light of this information,
this commit switches assert_eq!() to using {} in the error message instead of
{:?}.
In updating existing code, there were a few error cases that I encountered:
* It's impossible to define Show for [T, ..N]. I think DST will alleviate this
because we can define Show for [T].
* A few types here and there just needed a #[deriving(Show)]
* Type parameters needed a Show bound, I often moved this to `assert!(a == b)`
* `Path` doesn't implement `Show`, so assert_eq!() cannot be used on two paths.
I don't think this is much of a regression though because {:?} on paths looks
awful (it's a byte array).
Concretely speaking, this shaved 10K off a 656K binary. Not a lot, but sometime
significant for smaller binaries.
3 tests, pretty/block-disambig.rs, run-pass/operator-overloading.rs,
and run-pass/weird-exprs.rs, all included the ternary operator. These
were changed to use the if-then-else construct instead.
2 tests, run-pass/block-arg-in-ternary.rs and run-pass/ternary.rs, were
only there because of the ternary operator, and were removed.
The methods used to implement operators now simply use
the name of the operator itself, except for unary -, which is called
min to not clash with binary -. Index is called [].
Closes#1520
When no built-in interpretation is found for one of the operators
mentioned below, the typechecker will try to turn it into a method
call with the name written next to it. For binary operators, the
method will be called on the LHS with the RHS as only parameter.
Binary:
+ op_add
- op_sub
* op_mul
/ op_div
% op_rem
& op_and
| op_or
^ op_xor
<< op_shift_left
>> op_shift_right
>>> op_ashift_right
Unary:
- op_neg
! op_not
Overloading of the indexing ([]) operator isn't finished yet.
Issue #1520
