RFC 248? I think you meant RFC 438.
There ain’t an RFC 248, while 438 looks to be what is being referred to:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0438-precedence-of-plus.md
--------------
Chis Morgan has a pretty important documentation fix in #19385 and he hasn't responded in a while to that pull request so I rebased it for him
Closes#19385
This commit completes the deprecation story for the in-tree serialization
library. The compiler will now emit a warning whenever it encounters
`deriving(Encodable)` or `deriving(Decodable)`, and the library itself is now
marked `#[unstable]` for when feature staging is enabled.
All users of serialization can migrate to the `rustc-serialize` crate on
crates.io which provides the exact same interface as the libserialize library
in-tree. The new deriving modes are named `RustcEncodable` and `RustcDecodable`
and require `extern crate "rustc-serialize" as rustc_serialize` at the crate
root in order to expand correctly.
To migrate all crates, add the following to your `Cargo.toml`:
[dependencies]
rustc-serialize = "0.1.1"
And then add the following to your crate root:
extern crate "rustc-serialize" as rustc_serialize;
Finally, rename `Encodable` and `Decodable` deriving modes to `RustcEncodable`
and `RustcDecodable`.
[breaking-change]
This commit completes the deprecation story for the in-tree serialization
library. The compiler will now emit a warning whenever it encounters
`deriving(Encodable)` or `deriving(Decodable)`, and the library itself is now
marked `#[unstable]` for when feature staging is enabled.
All users of serialization can migrate to the `rustc-serialize` crate on
crates.io which provides the exact same interface as the libserialize library
in-tree. The new deriving modes are named `RustcEncodable` and `RustcDecodable`
and require `extern crate "rustc-serialize" as rustc_serialize` at the crate
root in order to expand correctly.
To migrate all crates, add the following to your `Cargo.toml`:
[dependencies]
rustc-serialize = "0.1.1"
And then add the following to your crate root:
extern crate "rustc-serialize" as rustc_serialize;
Finally, rename `Encodable` and `Decodable` deriving modes to `RustcEncodable`
and `RustcDecodable`.
[breaking-change]
followed by a semicolon.
This allows code like `vec![1i, 2, 3].len();` to work.
This breaks code that uses macros as statements without putting
semicolons after them, such as:
fn main() {
...
assert!(a == b)
assert!(c == d)
println(...);
}
It also breaks code that uses macros as items without semicolons:
local_data_key!(foo)
fn main() {
println("hello world")
}
Add semicolons to fix this code. Those two examples can be fixed as
follows:
fn main() {
...
assert!(a == b);
assert!(c == d);
println(...);
}
local_data_key!(foo);
fn main() {
println("hello world")
}
RFC #378.
Closes#18635.
[breaking-change]
This change makes the compiler no longer infer whether types (structures
and enumerations) implement the `Copy` trait (and thus are implicitly
copyable). Rather, you must implement `Copy` yourself via `impl Copy for
MyType {}`.
A new warning has been added, `missing_copy_implementations`, to warn
you if a non-generic public type has been added that could have
implemented `Copy` but didn't.
For convenience, you may *temporarily* opt out of this behavior by using
`#![feature(opt_out_copy)]`. Note though that this feature gate will never be
accepted and will be removed by the time that 1.0 is released, so you should
transition your code away from using it.
This breaks code like:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
Change this code to:
#[deriving(Show)]
struct Point2D {
x: int,
y: int,
}
impl Copy for Point2D {}
fn main() {
let mypoint = Point2D {
x: 1,
y: 1,
};
let otherpoint = mypoint;
println!("{}{}", mypoint, otherpoint);
}
This is the backwards-incompatible part of #13231.
Part of RFC #3.
[breaking-change]
Now that we have an overloaded comparison (`==`) operator, and that `Vec`/`String` deref to `[T]`/`str` on method calls, many `as_slice()`/`as_mut_slice()`/`to_string()` calls have become redundant. This patch removes them. These were the most common patterns:
- `assert_eq(test_output.as_slice(), "ground truth")` -> `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth")`
- `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth".to_string())` -> `assert_eq(test_output, "ground truth")`
- `vec.as_mut_slice().sort()` -> `vec.sort()`
- `vec.as_slice().slice(from, to)` -> `vec.slice(from_to)`
---
Note that e.g. `a_string.push_str(b_string.as_slice())` has been left untouched in this PR, since we first need to settle down whether we want to favor the `&*b_string` or the `b_string[]` notation.
This is rebased on top of #19167
cc @alexcrichton @aturon
As an example of what this changes, the following code:
```rust
let x: [int ..4];
```
Currently spits out ‘expected `]`, found `..`’. However, a comma would also be valid there, as would a number of other tokens. This change adjusts the parser to produce more accurate errors, so that that example now produces ‘expected one of `(`, `+`, `,`, `::`, or `]`, found `..`’.
(Thanks to cramer on IRC for pointing out this problem with diagnostics.)
The only other place I know of that doesn’t allow trailing commas is closure types (#19414), and those are a bit tricky to fix (I suspect it might be impossible without infinite lookahead) so I didn’t implement that in this patch. There are other issues surrounding closure type parsing anyway, in particular #19410.
As an example of what this changes, the following code:
let x: [int ..4];
Currently spits out ‘expected `]`, found `..`’. However, a comma would also be
valid there, as would a number of other tokens. This change adjusts the parser
to produce more accurate errors, so that that example now produces ‘expected one
of `(`, `+`, `,`, `::`, or `]`, found `..`’.
