Avoid using locally installed Source Code Pro font (fixes#24355).
In some versions of this font the ampersands are drawn badly.
A doc tree built with this change is at https://storage.googleapis.com/mbp-rust-builds/fonts/doc/std/index.html
I'm not seeing this problem locally so I'm not sure this fixes it, but based on the diagnosis in the bug it should.
I've made this a minimal change by only removing the one problematic font but maybe for consistency every font should be read from the Rust docs tree?
Update book/ffi to use catch_unwind
r? @GuillaumeGomez
The doc mentioned to spawn a new thread instead of using catch_unwind, which has been the recommended way to catch panics for foreign function interfaces for a few releases now.
This commit fixes that.
reference: fix definition of :tt
The reference says that $x:tt matches "either side of the `=>` in macro_rules` which is technically true but completely uninformative. This changes that bullet point to what the book says (a single token or sequence of token trees inside brackets).
r? @GuillaumeGomez
The doc mentioned to spawn a new thread instead of using catch_unwind, which has been the recommended way to catch panics for foreign function interfaces for a few releases now.
The reference says that $x:tt matches "either side of the `=>` in macro_rules` which is technically true but completely uninformative. This changes that bullet point to what the book says (a single token or sequence of token trees inside brackets).
Use literal 5 instead of five in book section 4.1
The other two code snippets in this sentence are valid code, so it makes more sense to use the literal `5` rather than the invalid symbol `five`.
Clarify the reference's status.
The former wording only gave part of the picture, we want to be crystal
clear about this.
/cc @petrochenkov, who had concerns about https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/37820
change the `box_free` lang item to accept pointers to unsized types
in miri we use the `box_free` lang item as the destructor for `Box` objects, since the function's api matches that of an `fn drop(&mut self)` in a hypothetical `impl<T: ?Sized> Drop for Box<T>` exactly.
This works fine except if we insert a check in the `size_of` intrinsic to ensure that it is only called with sized types, since the `box_free` lang item calls that intrinsic.
cc @eddyb
no clue who to r? here, probably lang team?
Update testing.md to reflect changes to cargo new
`cargo new` now creates a `src/lib.rs` with a `tests` module by default. I've updated the earlier examples in this doc to reflect this. However, I don't know how we want to approach the "introduction" to idiomatic testing that follows in "the tests module" section. I _think_ it should be broken apart, with the module concept being introduced early on, and the `super` concept being addressed when we hit the `add_two` example. I'd like to get agreement on that being the right approach before I do it though.
I _also_ removed the `#fn main() {}` hidden at the beginning of each example, as these cause Rust Playground to not treat the file as a set of tests that it can run. Removing it _should_ cause Rust Playground to display a "Test >" button in the top left when a user runs the code, which will allow them to see the test runner output.
While the commit message on this one sounds terrible, it's really not so
bad. The issue is that our test runner _expects_ a `fn main() {}` in
code blocks that it'll test, but this code really shouldn't have them.
If it did, then clicking the "play" link in the docs would result in
play.rust-lang.org not treating this code as a test example to be run.
Without these changes, play.rust-lang.org (as of today) would wrap
our examples in `fn main() {}`. This prevents the user from being able
to easily run the tests.
Document the question mark operator in reference and the book's syntax index
The question mark operator will be stabilized for the Rust 1.13 release (unfortunately). Even though I don't like the operator, it still should be documented in the syntax index in the book and in the reference.
Maybe there are people who also want to change the book's chapters on error handling, depending on their views of what idiomatic error handling is, now that the operator is stable, but I don't want to and I'd prefer to keep this PR focused on the reference and syntax index only.
Please also apply this PR to the beta branch of rust.
book: Removed platform compatibility table, link to the forge
The content is duplicated, and it doesn't need to be in this location.
It's mostly trivia that doesn't apply to most of the audience.
The forge is up to date.
r? @steveklabnik cc @alexcrichton
Add error note to illegal code snippet
Mark intentionally invalid code snippet in documentation as such with a comment. Similar comments used elsewhere in this file.
r? @steveklabnik
Make it clear that the reference isn't normative
Any time someone edits the reference, it has to be taken very seriously,
since it's the closest thing we have to a specification. This commit
adds language which indicates that this is not a normative document,
which makes it easier to make tweaks without worrying about forever
harming the future of Rust by painting ourselves in a corner.
r? @aturon
`cargo new` now creates a `src/lib.rs` with a `tests` module by default. I've updated the earlier examples in this doc to reflect this. However, I don't know how we want to approach the "introduction" to idiomatic testing that follows in "the tests module" section. I _think_ it should be broken apart, with the module concept being introduced early on, and the `super` concept being addressed when we hit the `add_two` example. I'd like to get agreement on that being the right approach before I do it though.
I _also_ removed the `#fn main() {}` hidden at the beginning of each example, as these cause Rust Playground to not treat the file as a set of tests that it can run. Removing it _should_ cause Rust Playground to display a "Test >" button in the top left when a user runs the code, which will allow them to see the test runner output.
Stabilize `..` in tuple (struct) patterns
I'd like to nominate `..` in tuple and tuple struct patterns for stabilization.
This feature is a relatively small extension to existing stable functionality and doesn't have known blockers.
The feature first appeared in Rust 1.10 6 months ago.
An example of use: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/36203
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/33627
r? @nikomatsakis
Add example using Self to reference
When I first came across `Self` I had a hard time finding references to it in the docs (and it's also been asked about on [StackOverflow](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/32304595/whats-the-difference-between-self-and-self).
I hope this example provides someone who comes across it for the first time a little more help. If there is a better way to show an example actually using `Self`, I'm happy to modify this. It was just the simplest place to start I could see.
The content is duplicated, and it doesn't need to be in this location.
It's mostly trivia that doesn't apply to most of the audience.
The forge is up to date.
Fix some mistakes in HRTB docs
The example code for higher-ranked trait bounds on closures had an unnecessary `mut` which was confusing, and the text referred to an mutable reference which does not exist in the code (and isn't needed). Removed the `mut`s and fixed the text to better describe the actual error for the failing example.
Thanks to csd_ on IRC for pointing out these problems!
r? @steveklabnik
