I'm surprised that bitwise operators `&`, `|` and `^` are implemented for `bool` arguments, because inspection of boolean's bits is not something that should be encouraged and because `&&` -> `&` is a common typo, but if they are implemented, then their behavior should be documented.
The "unit value" is a value of the "unit type," not the "unit value type." Regardless of correctness, this straight syntax is easier to grok.
Part of #16676
Sorry if something's off here, it's my first pull request to rust!
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
