per rfc 459
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19390
One question is: should we start by warning, and only switch to hard error later? I think we discussed something like this in the meeting.
r? @alexcrichton
- The following operator traits now take their arguments by value: `Add`, `Sub`, `Mul`, `Div`, `Rem`, `BitAnd`, `BitOr`, `BitXor`, `Shl`, `Shr`. This breaks all existing implementations of these traits.
- The binary operation `a OP b` now "desugars" to `OpTrait::op_method(a, b)` and consumes both arguments.
- `String` and `Vec` addition have been changed to reuse the LHS owned value, and to avoid internal cloning. Only the following asymmetric operations are available: `String + &str` and `Vec<T> + &[T]`, which are now a short-hand for the "append" operation.
[breaking-change]
---
This passes `make check` locally. I haven't touch the unary operators in this PR, but converting them to by value should be very similar to this PR. I can work on them after this gets the thumbs up.
@nikomatsakis r? the compiler changes
@aturon r? the library changes. I think the only controversial bit is the semantic change of the `Vec`/`String` `Add` implementation.
cc #19148
This is not technically a [breaking-change], but it will be soon, so
you should update your code. Typically, shadowing is accidental, and
the shadowing lifetime can simply be removed. This frequently occurs
in constructor patterns:
```rust
// Old:
impl<'a> SomeStruct<'a> { fn new<'a>(..) -> SomeStruct<'a> { ... } }
// Should be:
impl<'a> SomeStruct<'a> { fn new(..) -> SomeStruct<'a> { ... } }
```
Otherwise, you should rename the inner lifetime to something
else. Note though that lifetime elision frequently applies:
```rust
// Old
impl<'a> SomeStruct<'a> {
fn get<'a>(x: &'a self) -> &'a T { &self.field }
}
// Should be:
impl<'a> SomeStruct<'a> {
fn get(x: &self) -> &T { &self.field }
}
``
They are replaced with unboxed closures.
cc @pcwalton @aturon
This is a [breaking-change]. Mostly, uses of `proc()` simply need to be converted to `move||` (unboxed closures), but in some cases the adaptations required are more complex (particularly for library authors). A detailed write-up can be found here: http://smallcultfollowing.com/babysteps/blog/2014/11/26/purging-proc/
The commits are ordered to emphasize the more important changes, but are not truly standalone.
Unlike a tuple variant constructor which can be called as a function, a struct variant constructor is not a function, so cannot be called.
If the user tries to assign the constructor to a variable, an ICE occurs, because there is no way to use it later. So we should stop the constructor from being used like that.
A similar mechanism already exists for a normal struct, as it prohibits a struct from being resolved. This commit does the same for a struct variant.
This commit also includes some changes to the existing tests.
Fixes#19452.
in most cases, just the error message changed, but in some cases we
are reporting new errors that OUGHT to have been reported before but
we're overlooked (mostly involving the `'static` bound on `Send`).
This pull request tries to fix#19340, which states two ICE cases related to enum struct variants.
It is my first attempt to fix the compiler. I found this solution by trial and error, so the method used to fix the issue looks very hacky. Please review it, and direct me to find a better solution.
I'm also to add test cases. Where should I put them? Maybe `src/test/run-pass/issue-19340.rs`?
