Coercions will now attempt to autoderef as needed before reborrowing.
This includes overloaded `Deref`, e.g. `&Rc<T>` coerces to `&T`, and
`DerefMut`, e.g. `&mut Vec<T>` coerces to `&mut [T]` (in addition to `&[T]`).
Closes#21432.
It was considered to be impossible but actually it can
happen for nested closures. Also, because there must
be nested closures when this happens, we can use more
targeted help message.
Closes#21390Closes#21600
explicit form `Fn<A,B>` and now should use `Fn(A) -> B` or
`Fn<A,Output=B>`, but in some cases we get duplicate error
reports. This is mildly annoying and arises because of the main error
and another error from the projection. Might be worth squashing those,
but seems like a separate problem.
This implements the remaining bits of 'feature staging', as described in [RFC 507](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0507-release-channels.md).
This is not quite done, but the substance of the work is complete so submitting for early review.
Key changes:
* `unstable`, `stable` and `deprecated` attributes all require 'feature' and 'since', and support an optional 'reason'.
* The `unstable` lint is removed.
* A new 'stability checking' pass warns when a used unstable library feature has not been activated with the `feature` attribute. At 1.0 beta this will become an error.
* A new 'unused feature checking' pass emits a lint ('unused_feature', renamed from 'unknown_feature') for any features that were activated but not used.
* A new tidy script `featureck.py` performs some global sanity checking, particularly that 'since' numbers agree, and also prints out a summary of features.
Differences from RFC:
* As implemented `unstable` requires a `since` attribute. I do not know if this is useful. I included it in the original sed script and just left it.
* RFC didn't specify the name of the optional 'reason' attribute.
* This continues to use 'unstable', 'stable' and 'deprecated' names (the 'nice' names) instead of 'staged_unstable', but only activates them with the crate-level 'staged_api' attribute.
I intend to update the RFC based on the outcome of this PR.
Issues:
* The unused feature check doesn't account for language features - i.e. you can activate a language feature, not use it, and not get the error.
Open questions:
* All unstable and deprecated features are named 'unnamed_feature', which i picked just because it is uniquely greppable. This is the 'catch-all' feature. What should it be?
* All stable features are named 'grandfathered'. What should this be?
TODO:
* Add check that all `deprecated` attributes are paired with a `stable` attribute in order to preserve the knowledge about when a feature became stable.
* Update rustdoc in various ways.
* Remove obsolete stability discussion from reference.
* Add features for 'path', 'io', 'os', 'hash' and 'rand'.
cc #20445 @alexcrichton @aturon
It was considered to be impossible but actually it can
happen for nested closures. Also, because there must
be nested closures when this happens, we can use more
targeted help message.
Closes#21390Closes#21600
This new variant introduces finer-grain code extents, i.e. we now
track that a binding lives only for a suffix of a block, and
(importantly) will be dropped when it goes out of scope *before* the
bindings that occurred earlier in the block.
Both of these notions are neatly captured by marking the block (and
each suffix) as an enclosing scope of the next suffix beneath it.
This is work that is part of the foundation for issue #8861.
(It actually has been seen in earlier posted pull requests; I have
just factored it out into its own PR to ease my own rebasing.)
----
These finer grained scopes do mean that some code is newly rejected by
`rustc`; for example:
```rust
let mut map : HashMap<u8, &u8> = HashMap::new();
let tmp = Box::new(2);
map.insert(43, &*tmp);
```
This will now fail to compile with a message that `*tmp` does not live
long enough, because the scope of `tmp` is now strictly smaller than
that of `map`, and the use of `&u8` in map's type requires that the
borrowed references are all to data that live at least as long as the
map.
The usual fix for a case like this is to move the binding for `tmp`
up above that of `map`; note that you can still leave the initialization
in the original spot, like so:
```rust
let tmp;
let mut map : HashMap<u8, &u8> = HashMap::new();
tmp = box 2;
map.insert(43, &*tmp);
```
Similarly, one can encounter an analogous situation with `Vec`: one
would need to rewrite:
```rust
let mut vec = Vec::new();
let tmp = 'c';
vec.push(&tmp);
```
as:
```
let tmp;
let mut vec = Vec::new();
tmp = 'c';
vec.push(&tmp);
```
----
In some corner cases, it does not suffice to reorder the bindings; in
particular, when the types for both bindings need to reflect exactly
the *same* code extent, and a parent/child relationship between them
does not work.
In pnkfelix's experience this has arisen most often when mixing uses
of cyclic data structures while also allowing a lifetime parameter
`'a` to flow into a type parameter context where the type is
*invariant* with respect to the type parameter. An important instance
of this is `arena::TypedArena<T>`, which is invariant with respect
to `T`.
(The reason that variance is relevant is this: *if* `TypedArena` were
covariant with respect to its type parameter, then we could assign it
the longer lifetime when it is initialized, and then convert it to a
subtype (via covariance) with a shorter lifetime when necessary. But
`TypedArena` is invariant with respect to its type parameter, and thus
if `S` is a subtype of `T` (in particular, if `S` has a lifetime
parameter that is shorter than that of `T`), then a `TypedArena<S>` is
unrelated to `TypedArena<T>`.)
Concretely, consider code like this:
```rust
struct Node<'a> { sibling: Option<&'a Node<'a>> }
struct Context<'a> {
// because of this field, `Context<'a>` is invariant with respect to `'a`.
arena: &'a TypedArena<Node<'a>>,
...
}
fn new_ctxt<'a>(arena: &'a TypedArena<Node<'a>>) -> Context<'a> { ... }
fn use_ctxt<'a>(fcx: &'a Context<'a>) { ... }
let arena = TypedArena::new();
let ctxt = new_ctxt(&arena);
use_ctxt(&ctxt);
```
In these situations, if you try to introduce two bindings via two
distinct `let` statements, each is (with this commit) assigned a
distinct extent, and the region inference system cannot find a single
region to assign to the lifetime `'a` that works for both of the
bindings. So you get an error that `ctxt` does not live long enough;
but moving its binding up above that of `arena` just shifts the error
so now the compiler complains that `arena` does not live long enough.
SO: What to do? The easiest fix in this case is to ensure that the two
bindings *do* get assigned the same static extent, by stuffing both
bindings into the same let statement, like so:
```rust
let (arena, ctxt): (TypedArena, Context);
arena = TypedArena::new();
ctxt = new_ctxt(&arena);
use_ctxt(&ctxt);
```
Due to the new code rejections outlined above, this is a ...
[breaking-change]
In preparation for the I/O rejuvination of the standard library, this commit
renames the current `io` module to `old_io` in order to make room for the new
I/O modules. It is expected that the I/O RFCs will land incrementally over time
instead of all at once, and this provides a fresh clean path for new modules to
enter into as well as guaranteeing that all old infrastructure will remain in
place for some time.
As each `old_io` module is replaced it will be deprecated in-place for new
structures in `std::{io, fs, net}` (as appropriate).
This commit does *not* leave a reexport of `old_io as io` as the deprecation
lint does not currently warn on this form of use. This is quite a large breaking
change for all imports in existing code, but all functionality is retained
precisely as-is and path statements simply need to be renamed from `io` to
`old_io`.
[breaking-change]
I'm beginning to suspect it's impossible to avoid accidentally writing
`#[deriving]` at least once in every program, and it results in
non-intuitive error messages: "Foo doesn't have any method in scope
`clone`" despite there being a `#[deriv...(Clone)]` attribute!
Also, lots of documentation around the internet uses `#[deriving]` so
providing this guidance is very helpful (lots of people ask in #rust
about this error).
E.g. `fn foo() { foo() }`, or, more subtlely
impl Foo for Box<Foo+'static> {
fn bar(&self) {
self.bar();
}
}
The compiler will warn and point out the points where recursion occurs,
if it determines that the function cannot return without calling itself.
Closes#17899.
---
This is highly non-perfect, in particular, my wording above is quite precise, and I have some unresolved questions: This currently will warn about
```rust
fn foo() {
if bar { loop {} }
foo()
}
```
even though `foo` may never be called (i.e. our apparent "unconditional" recursion is actually conditional). I don't know if we should handle this case, and ones like it with `panic!()` instead of `loop` (or anything else that "returns" `!`).
However, strictly speaking, it seems to me that changing the above to not warn will require changing
```rust
fn foo() {
while bar {}
foo()
}
```
to also not warn since it could be that the `while` is an infinite loop and doesn't ever hit the `foo`.
I'm inclined to think we let these cases warn since true edge cases like the first one seem rare, and if they do occur they seem like they would usually be typos in the function call. (I could imagine someone accidentally having code like `fn foo() { assert!(bar()); foo() /* meant to be boo() */ }` which won't warn if the `loop` case is "fixed".)
(Part of the reason this is unresolved is wanting feedback, part of the reason is I couldn't devise a strategy that worked in all cases.)
---
The name `unconditional_self_calls` is kinda clunky; and this reconstructs the CFG for each function that is linted which may or may not be very expensive, I don't know.
I'm beginning to suspect it's impossible to avoid accidentally writing
`#[deriving]` at least once in every program, and it results in
non-intuitive error messages: "Foo doesn't have any method in scope
`clone`" despite there being a `#[deriv...(Clone)]` attribute!
Also, lots of documentation around the internet uses `#[deriving]` so
providing this guidance is very helpful (lots of people ask in #rust
about this error).
Fixes#21166.
E.g. `fn foo() { foo() }`, or, more subtlely
impl Foo for Box<Foo+'static> {
fn bar(&self) {
self.bar();
}
}
The compiler will warn and point out the points where recursion occurs,
if it determines that the function cannot return without calling itself.
Closes#17899.
