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.
macro_rules! is like an item that defines a macro. Other items don't have a
trailing semicolon, or use a paren-delimited body.
If there's an argument for matching the invocation syntax, e.g. parentheses for
an expr macro, then I think that applies more strongly to the *inner*
delimiters on the LHS, wrapping the individual argument patterns.
In preparation for [removing the `std::cmp::Ordering` reexport](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19253), this needs to be done to prevent errors like:
```
note: in expansion of #[deriving]
note: expansion site
error: unresolved name `std::cmp::Equal`
#[deriving(Clone, PartialEq, PartialOrd, Eq, Ord, Show)]
^~~
```
In preparation for removing the std::cmp::Ordering reexport, this needs
to be done to prevent errors like:
```
note: in expansion of #[deriving]
note: expansion site
error: unresolved name `std::cmp::Equal`
\#[deriving(Clone, PartialEq, PartialOrd, Eq, Ord, Show)]
^~~
```
This change makes the compiler no longer infer whether types (structures
and enumerations) implement the `Copy` trait (and thus are implicitly
copyable). Rather, you must implement `Copy` yourself via `impl Copy for
MyType {}`.
A new warning has been added, `missing_copy_implementations`, to warn
you if a non-generic public type has been added that could have
implemented `Copy` but didn't.
For convenience, you may *temporarily* opt out of this behavior by using
`#![feature(opt_out_copy)]`. Note though that this feature gate will never be
accepted and will be removed by the time that 1.0 is released, so you should
transition your code away from using it.
This breaks code like:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
Change this code to:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
impl Copy for Point2D {}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
This is the backwards-incompatible part of #13231.
Part of RFC #3.
[breaking-change]
In regards to:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19253#issuecomment-64836729
This commit:
* Changes the #deriving code so that it generates code that utilizes fewer
reexports (in particur Option::* and Result::*), which is necessary to
remove those reexports in the future
* Changes other areas of the codebase so that fewer reexports are utilized
This breaks code that referred to variant names in the same namespace as
their enum. Reexport the variants in the old location or alter code to
refer to the new locations:
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
=>
```
pub use self::Foo::{A, B};
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = A;
}
```
or
```
pub enum Foo {
A,
B
}
fn main() {
let a = Foo::A;
}
```
[breaking-change]
Remove the `NonMatchesExplode` variant now that no deriving impl uses it.
Removed `EnumNonMatching` entirely.
Remove now irrelevant `on_matching` field and `HandleNonMatchingEnums` type.
Removed unused `EnumNonMatchFunc` type def.
Drive-by: revise `EnumNonMatchCollapsedFunc` doc.
Made all calls to `expand_enum_method_body` go directly to
`build_enum_match_tuple`.
Alpha-rename `enum_nonmatch_g` back to `enum_nonmatch_f` to reduce overall diff noise.
Inline sole call of `some_ordering_const`.
Inline sole call of `ordering_const`.
Removed a bunch of code that became dead after the above changes.
In the above formulas, `n` is the number of variants, and `k` is the
number of self-args fed into deriving. In the particular case of
interest (namely `PartialOrd` and `Ord`), `k` is always 2, so we are
basically comparing `O(n)` versus `O(n^2)`.
Also, the stage is set for having *all* enum deriving codes go through
`build_enum_match_tuple` and getting rid of `build_enum_match`.
Also, seriously attempted to clean up the code itself. Added a bunch
of comments attempting to document what I learned as I worked through
the original code and adapted it to this new strategy.
In particular, I want authors of deriving modes to understand what
they are opting into (namely quadratic code size or worse) when they
select NonMatchesExplode.
I ended up altering the semantics of Json's PartialOrd implementation.
It used to be the case that Null < Null, but I can't think of any reason
for an ordering other than the default one so I just switched it over to
using the derived implementation.
This also fixes broken `PartialOrd` implementations for `Vec` and
`TreeMap`.
RFC: 0028-partial-cmp
This is a transitionary step towards completing #12517. This change modifies the
compiler to accept Partial{Ord,Eq} as deriving modes which will currently expand
to implementations of PartialOrd and PartialEq (synonyms for Eq/Ord).
After a snapshot, all of deriving(Eq, Ord) will be removed, and after a snapshot
of that, TotalEq/TotalOrd will be renamed to Eq/Ord.
`TotalEq` is now just an assertion about the `Eq` impl of a
type (i.e. `==` is a total equality if a type implements `TotalEq`) so
the extra method is just confusing.
Also, a new method magically appeared as a hack to allow deriving to
assert that the contents of a struct/enum are also TotalEq, because the
deriving infrastructure makes it very hard to do anything but create a
trait method. (You didn't hear about this horrible work-around from me
:(.)
The old method of building up a list of items and threading it through
all of the decorators was unwieldy and not really scalable as
non-deriving ItemDecorators become possible. The API is now that the
decorator gets an immutable reference to the item it's attached to, and
a callback that it can pass new items to. If we want to add syntax
extensions that can modify the item they're attached to, we can add that
later, but I think it'll have to be separate from ItemDecorator to avoid
strange ordering issues.
