[breaking-change]
The `mut` in slices is now redundant. Mutability is 'inferred' from position. This means that if mutability is only obvious from the type, you will need to use explicit calls to the slicing methods.
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]
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19077
I would appreciate any guidance on how to write a test for this. I saw some examples in `test/pretty`, but there are different ways to test... With or without `.pp` files, with a `pp-exact` comment, etc.
Use the expected type to infer the argument/return types of unboxed closures. Also, in `||` expressions, use the expected type to decide if the result should be a boxed or unboxed closure (and if an unboxed closure, what kind).
This supercedes PR #19089, which was already reviewed by @pcwalton.
Futureproof Rust for fancier suffixed literals. The Rust compiler tokenises a literal followed immediately (no whitespace) by an identifier as a single token: (for example) the text sequences `"foo"bar`, `1baz` and `1u1024` are now a single token rather than the pairs `"foo"` `bar`, `1` `baz` and `1u` `1024` respectively.
The compiler rejects all such suffixes in the parser, except for the 12 numeric suffixes we have now.
I'm fairly sure this will affect very few programs, since it's not currently legal to have `<literal><identifier>` in a Rust program, except in a macro invocation. Any macro invocation relying on this behaviour can simply separate the two tokens with whitespace: `foo!("bar"baz)` becomes `foo!("bar" baz)`.
This implements [RFC 463](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0463-future-proof-literal-suffixes.md), and so closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19088.
This adds an optional suffix at the end of a literal token:
`"foo"bar`. An actual use of a suffix in a expression (or other literal
that the compiler reads) is rejected in the parser.
This doesn't switch the handling of numbers to this system, and doesn't
outlaw illegal suffixes for them yet.
