0d5bcb14ad
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.
19 lines
763 B
Rust
19 lines
763 B
Rust
// Copyright 2015 The Rust Project Developers. See the COPYRIGHT
|
|
// file at the top-level directory of this distribution and at
|
|
// http://rust-lang.org/COPYRIGHT.
|
|
//
|
|
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 <LICENSE-APACHE or
|
|
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0> or the MIT license
|
|
// <LICENSE-MIT or http://opensource.org/licenses/MIT>, at your
|
|
// option. This file may not be copied, modified, or distributed
|
|
// except according to those terms.
|
|
|
|
// Test that overloaded calls work with zero arity closures
|
|
|
|
fn main() {
|
|
// FIXME (#22405): Replace `Box::new` with `box` here when/if possible.
|
|
let functions: [Box<Fn() -> Option<()>>; 1] = [Box::new(|| None)];
|
|
|
|
let _: Option<Vec<()>> = functions.iter().map(|f| (*f)()).collect();
|
|
}
|