Make `assert` a built-in procedural macro
Makes `assert` macro a built-in one without touching its functionality. This is a prerequisite for RFC 2011 (#44838).
Stabilize inclusive range (`..=`)
Stabilize the followings:
* `inclusive_range` — The `std::ops::RangeInclusive` and `std::ops::RangeInclusiveTo` types, except its fields (tracked by #49022 separately).
* `inclusive_range_syntax` — The `a..=b` and `..=b` expression syntax
* `dotdoteq_in_patterns` — Using `a..=b` in a pattern
cc #28237
r? @rust-lang/lang
Stabilise feature(never_type). Introduce feature(exhaustive_patterns)
This stabilizes `!`, removing the feature gate as well as the old defaulting-to-`()` behavior. The pattern exhaustiveness checks which were covered by `feature(never_type)` have been moved behind a new `feature(exhaustive_patterns)` gate.
Replace feature(never_type) with feature(exhaustive_patterns).
feature(exhaustive_patterns) only covers the pattern-exhaustives checks
that used to be covered by feature(never_type)
Move ascii::escape_default to libcore
As requested in #46409, the `ascii::escape_default` method has been added to the core library. All I did was copy over the `std::ascii` module file, remove the (redundant) `AsciiExt` trait, and change some of the documentation to match. None of the tests were changed.
I wasn't sure how to handle the annotations. For `EscapeDefault` and `escape_default()`, I changed them to `#[unstable(feature = "core_ascii", issue = "46409")]`. Is that alright? Or should I leave them as they were?
This can be used for integers within a larger types which implements Debug
(possibly through derive) but not fmt::UpperHex or fmt::LowerHex.
```rust
assert!(format!("{:02x?}", b"Foo\0") == "[46, 6f, 6f, 00]");
assert!(format!("{:02X?}", b"Foo\0") == "[46, 6F, 6F, 00]");
```
RFC: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2226
Required moving all fulldeps tests depending on `rand` to different locations as
now there's multiple `rand` crates that can't be implicitly linked against.
Add a potential cause raising `ParseIntError`.
Initially, I wanted to add it directly to the documentation of `str. parse()` method, I finally found that it was more relevant (I hope so?) to directly document the structure in question. I've added a scenario, in which we could all get caught at least once, to make it easier to diagnose the problem when parsing integers.
