Most of the Rust community agrees that the vec! macro is clearer when
called using square brackets [] instead of regular brackets (). Most of
these ocurrences are from before macros allowed using different types of
brackets.
There is one left unchanged in a pretty-print test, as the pretty
printer still wants it to have regular brackets.
This is the kind of change that one is expected to need to make to
accommodate overloaded-`box`.
----
Note that this is not *all* of the changes necessary to accommodate
Issue 22181. It is merely the subset of those cases where there was
already a let-binding in place that made it easy to add the necesasry
type ascription.
(For unnamed intermediate `Box` values, one must go down a different
route; `Box::new` is the option that maximizes portability, but has
potential inefficiency depending on whether the call is inlined.)
----
There is one place worth note, `run-pass/coerce-match.rs`, where I
used an ugly form of `Box<_>` type ascription where I would have
preferred to use `Box::new` to accommodate overloaded-`box`. I
deliberately did not use `Box::new` here, because that is already done
in coerce-match-calls.rs.
----
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
floating point numbers for real.
This will break code that looks like:
let mut x = 0;
while ... {
x += 1;
}
println!("{}", x);
Change that code to:
let mut x = 0i;
while ... {
x += 1;
}
println!("{}", x);
Closes#15201.
[breaking-change]
for `~str`/`~[]`.
Note that `~self` still remains, since I forgot to add support for
`Box<self>` before the snapshot.
How to update your code:
* Instead of `~EXPR`, you should write `box EXPR`.
* Instead of `~TYPE`, you should write `Box<Type>`.
* Instead of `~PATTERN`, you should write `box PATTERN`.
[breaking-change]
