The "4.3 Loops" section only describes `while` and `loop`. We then see `for`
used in a code sample at the end of the "13. Vectors and strings" section,
but it's explained for the first time only in the next section --
"14. Closures".
It is worth mentioning it in "4.3 Loops".
---
Feel free to reword it and commit yourself if you don't like my wording.
The "4.3 Loops" section only describes `while` and `loop`. We then see `for`
used in a code sample at the end of the "13. Vectors and strings" section,
but it's explained for the first time only in the next section --
"14. Closures".
It is worth mentioning it in "4.3 Loops".
Several minor changes:
- The clean-up I mentioned in #6851 (moving functions from deriving/mod.rs to deriving/generic.rs)
- Move `expand_generic_deriving` to a method
- Reimplement `deriving(Ord)` with no dependence on `Eq`
LLVM provides these functions as intrinsics, and will generate calls to
libc when appropriate. They are exposed in the `ptr` module as
`copy_nonoverlapping_memory`, `copy_memory` and `set_memory`.
@graydon: r?
r? @jld or @graydon
The calculation looks right to me, but perhaps one of you two can double check. You two seem like you are doing the most recent work in this sort of area.
LLVM provides these functions as intrinsics, and will generate calls to
libc when appropriate. They are exposed in the `ptr` module as
`copy_nonoverlapping_memory`, `copy_memory` and `set_memory`.
There is a pointer to #4760, which is a closed issue. The real issue is
the more general problem described in #4653. Correct the comment.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
I noticed this while reading the tutorial.
[1/2] adds tests to guard against regressions.
[2/2] corrects the tutorial.
Please let me know if you have a standard place to put tests: they seem to be all over the place currently.
Although in the example function `each` works as expected with
rust-0.6 (the latest release), it fails to even compile with `incoming`
rust (see test/compile-fail/bad-for-loop-2.rs). Change the function to
return a `bool` instead of `()`: this works fine with both versions of
rust, and does not misguide potential contributors.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
There are two distinct kinds of bad-for-loops to check for with two
distinct error messages. The current bad-for-loop.rs does not make this
clear, so rewrite it into bad-for-loop{,-2}.rs. The two failing
prototypes are:
fn quux(_: &fn(&int) -> int) -> bool { true }
fn quux(_: &fn(&int) -> bool) -> () { }
Note that the second one runs fine in rust-0.6 (the latest release), and
only fails with a rust built from `incoming`.
Signed-off-by: Ramkumar Ramachandra <artagnon@gmail.com>
