https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221
The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when
writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the
possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot
because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak
of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other
circumlocutions.
Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when
operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate
out a section describing the "Err-producing" case.
We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as
an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology
accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe.
To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead.
Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this
will work on UNIX based systems:
grep -lZR 'fail!' . | xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g'
You can of course also do this by hand.
[breaking-change]
This leaves the `Share` trait at `std::kinds` via a `#[deprecated]` `pub use`
statement, but the `NoShare` struct is no longer part of `std::kinds::marker`
due to #12660 (the build cannot bootstrap otherwise).
All code referencing the `Share` trait should now reference the `Sync` trait,
and all code referencing the `NoShare` type should now reference the `NoSync`
type. The functionality and meaning of this trait have not changed, only the
naming.
Closes#16281
[breaking-change]
its own type. Use a bitset to represent built-in bounds. There
are several places in the language where only builtin bounds (aka kinds)
will be accepted, e.g. on closures, destructor type parameters perhaps,
and on trait types.
