My main sources of information are [RFC401](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0401-coercions.md), the rust IRC channel, and a bunch of experiments to figure out what `rustc` currently supports.
Note that the RFC calls for some coercion behaviour that is not implemented yet (see #18469).
The documentation in this PR mostly covers current behaviour of rust and doesn't document the future behaviour. I haven't written about receiver expression coercion.
I would be happy to rewrite/adapt the PR according to feedback.
r? @steveklabnik
This was always a weird feature, and isn't being used in the compiler.
Static assertions should be done better than this.
This implements RFC #1096.
Fixes#13951Fixes#23008Fixes#6676
This is behind a feature gate, but that's still a
[breaking-change]
Maybe it's me, but I really needed an example to understand if let and refutable statements.
Playpen: http://is.gd/mjX3Gf
Let me know if the variable names are too, uh, culinary.
Several Minor API / Reference Documentation Fixes
- Fix a few small errors in the reference.
- Fix paper cuts in the API docs.
Fixes#24882Fixes#25233Fixes#25250
The reference was claiming all vectors all bounds-checked at run-time, when constant vectors are usually checked at compile-time.
For the changed example see http://is.gd/28ak9E
I've found that there are still huge amounts of occurrences of `task`s in the documentation. This PR tries to eliminate all of them in favor of `thread`.
This syntax was removed in b24a3b8 but references remained in the
grammar, the reference, rustdoc generation, and some auxiliary test
files that don't seem to have been used since 812637e.
An automated script was run against the `.rs` and `.md` files,
subsituting every occurrence of `task` with `thread`. In the `.rs`
files, only the texts in the comment blocks were affected.
Hi! While researching stuff for the reference and the grammar, I came across a few mentions of using the `priv` keyword that was removed in 0.11.0 (#13547, #8122, rust-lang/rfcs#26, [RFC 0026](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0026-remove-priv.md)).
One occurrence is a mention in the reference, a few are in comments, and a few are marking test functions. I left the test that makes sure you can't name an ident `priv` since it's still a reserved keyword. I did a little grepping around for `priv `, priv in backticks, `Private` etc and I think the remaining instances are fine, but if anyone knows anywhere in particular I should check for any other lingering mentions of `priv`, please let me know and I would be happy to! 🍂🌊
I'm interested in helping out with #16676 but more in the grammar than the reference-- here's my first chunk, more to come!! 🎉
I did pull a bit *out* of the reference, though, that was more relevant to the grammar but wasn't moved over as part of #24729.
I'm looking at, e.g. https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/libsyntax/ast.rs, as the source of truth, please let me know if I should be checking against something else instead/in addition.
r? @steveklabnik
Closes#17841.
The majority of the work should be done, e.g. trait and inherent impls, different forms of UFCS syntax, defaults, and cross-crate usage. It's probably enough to replace the constants in `f32`, `i8`, and so on, or close to good enough.
There is still some significant functionality missing from this commit:
- ~~Associated consts can't be used in match patterns at all. This is simply because I haven't updated the relevant bits in the parser or `resolve`, but it's *probably* not hard to get working.~~
- Since you can't select an impl for trait-associated consts until partway through type-checking, there are some problems with code that assumes that you can check constants earlier. Associated consts that are not in inherent impls cause ICEs if you try to use them in array sizes or match ranges. For similar reasons, `check_static_recursion` doesn't check them properly, so the stack goes ka-blooey if you use an associated constant that's recursively defined. That's a bit trickier to solve; I'm not entirely sure what the best approach is yet.
- Dealing with consts associated with type parameters will raise some new issues (e.g. if you have a `T: Int` type parameter and want to use `<T>::ZERO`). See rust-lang/rfcs#865.
- ~~Unused associated consts don't seem to trigger the `dead_code` lint when they should. Probably easy to fix.~~
Also, this is the first time I've been spelunking in rustc to such a large extent, so I've probably done some silly things in a couple of places.
