This is the kind of change that one is expected to need to make to
accommodate overloaded-`box`.
----
Note that this is not *all* of the changes necessary to accommodate
Issue 22181. It is merely the subset of those cases where there was
already a let-binding in place that made it easy to add the necesasry
type ascription.
(For unnamed intermediate `Box` values, one must go down a different
route; `Box::new` is the option that maximizes portability, but has
potential inefficiency depending on whether the call is inlined.)
----
There is one place worth note, `run-pass/coerce-match.rs`, where I
used an ugly form of `Box<_>` type ascription where I would have
preferred to use `Box::new` to accommodate overloaded-`box`. I
deliberately did not use `Box::new` here, because that is already done
in coerce-match-calls.rs.
----
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
fmt::Show is for debugging, and can and should be implemented for
all public types. This trait is used with `{:?}` syntax. There still
exists #[derive(Show)].
fmt::String is for types that faithfully be represented as a String.
Because of this, there is no way to derive fmt::String, all
implementations must be purposeful. It is used by the default format
syntax, `{}`.
This will break most instances of `{}`, since that now requires the type
to impl fmt::String. In most cases, replacing `{}` with `{:?}` is the
correct fix. Types that were being printed specifically for users should
receive a fmt::String implementation to fix this.
Part of #20013
[breaking-change]
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]
Libcore's test infrastructure is complicated by the fact that many lang
items are defined in the crate. The current approach (realcore/realstd
imports) is hacky and hard to work with (tests inside of core::cmp
haven't been run for months!).
Moving tests to a separate crate does mean that they can only test the
public API of libcore, but I don't feel that that is too much of an
issue. The only tests that I had to get rid of were some checking the
various numeric formatters, but those are also exercised through normal
format! calls in other tests.
Felix S. Klock II
Niko Matsakis
Alfie John
Tobias Bucher
Jorge Aparicio
Sean McArthur
Nick Cameron
Steve Klabnik
Jonas Hietala
Steven Fackler