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
The trait has an obvious, sensible implementation directly on vectors so
the MemWriter wrapper is unnecessary. This will halt the trend towards
providing all of the vector methods on MemWriter along with eliminating
the noise caused by conversions between the two types. It also provides
the useful default Writer methods on Vec<u8>.
After the type is removed and code has been migrated, it would make
sense to add a new implementation of MemWriter with seeking support. The
simple use cases can be covered with vectors alone, and ones with the
need for seeks can use a new MemWriter implementation.
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]
Formatting via reflection has been a little questionable for some time now, and
it's a little unfortunate that one of the standard macros will silently use
reflection when you weren't expecting it. This adds small bits of code bloat to
libraries, as well as not always being necessary. In light of this information,
this commit switches assert_eq!() to using {} in the error message instead of
{:?}.
In updating existing code, there were a few error cases that I encountered:
* It's impossible to define Show for [T, ..N]. I think DST will alleviate this
because we can define Show for [T].
* A few types here and there just needed a #[deriving(Show)]
* Type parameters needed a Show bound, I often moved this to `assert!(a == b)`
* `Path` doesn't implement `Show`, so assert_eq!() cannot be used on two paths.
I don't think this is much of a regression though because {:?} on paths looks
awful (it's a byte array).
Concretely speaking, this shaved 10K off a 656K binary. Not a lot, but sometime
significant for smaller binaries.
* All I/O now returns IoResult<T> = Result<T, IoError>
* All formatting traits now return fmt::Result = IoResult<()>
* The if_ok!() macro was added to libstd
