Previously, format!("{a}{b}", a=foo(), b=bar()) has foo() and bar() run in a
nondeterminisc order. This is clearly a non-desirable property, so this commit
uses iteration over a list instead of iteration over a hash map to provide
deterministic code generation of these format arguments.
The most significant fix is for `syntax::ext::deriving::encodable`,
where one of the blocks of code, auspiciously containing `<S>` (recall
that Markdown allows arbitrary HTML to be contained inside it), was not
formatted as a code block, with a fun but messy effect.
Makes labelled loops hygiene by performing renaming of the labels defined in e.g. `'x: loop { ... }` and then used in break and continue statements within loop body so that they act hygienically when used with macros.
Closes#12262.
Makes labelled loops hygiene by performing renaming of the labels
defined in e.g. `'x: loop { ... }` and then used in break and continue
statements within loop body so that they act hygienically when used with
macros.
Closes#12262.
These two containers are indeed collections, so their place is in
libcollections, not in libstd. There will always be a hash map as part of the
standard distribution of Rust, but by moving it out of the standard library it
makes libstd that much more portable to more platforms and environments.
This conveniently also removes the stuttering of 'std::hashmap::HashMap',
although 'collections::HashMap' is only one character shorter.
This patch merges IterBytes and Hash traits, which clears up the
confusion of using `#[deriving(IterBytes)]` to support hashing.
Instead, it now is much easier to use the new `#[deriving(Hash)]`
for making a type hashable with a stream hash.
Furthermore, it supports custom non-stream-based hashers, such as
if a value's hash was cached in a database.
This does not yet replace the old IterBytes-hash with this new
version.
Currently, the format_args! macro and its downstream macros in turn
expand to series of let statements, one for each of its arguments, and
then the invocation of the macro function. If one or more of the
arguments are RefCell's, the enclosing statement for the temporary of
the let is the let itself, which leads to scope problem. This patch
changes let's to a match expression.
Closes#12239.
Currently, the format_args! macro and its downstream macros in turn
expand to series of let statements, one for each of its arguments, and
then the invocation of the macro function. If one or more of the
arguments are RefCell's, the enclosing statement for the temporary of
the let is the let itself, which leads to scope problem. This patch
changes let's to a match expression.
Closes#12239.
Closes#11692. Instead of returning the original expression, a dummy expression
(with identical span) is returned. This prevents infinite loops of failed
expansions as well as odd double error messages in certain situations.
Now that fold_item can return multiple items, this is pretty trivial. It
also recursively expands generated items so ItemDecorators can generate
items that are tagged with ItemDecorators!
Closes#4913
The old method of building up a list of items and threading it through
all of the decorators was unwieldy and not really scalable as
non-deriving ItemDecorators become possible. The API is now that the
decorator gets an immutable reference to the item it's attached to, and
a callback that it can pass new items to. If we want to add syntax
extensions that can modify the item they're attached to, we can add that
later, but I think it'll have to be separate from ItemDecorator to avoid
strange ordering issues.
@huonw
The old method of building up a list of items and threading it through
all of the decorators was unwieldy and not really scalable as
non-deriving ItemDecorators become possible. The API is now that the
decorator gets an immutable reference to the item it's attached to, and
a callback that it can pass new items to. If we want to add syntax
extensions that can modify the item they're attached to, we can add that
later, but I think it'll have to be separate from ItemDecorator to avoid
strange ordering issues.
The first setp for #9880 is to add a new `crate` keyword. This PR does exactly that. I took a chance to refactor `parse_item_foreign_mod` and I broke it down into 2 separate methods to isolate each feature.
The next step will be to push a new stage0 snapshot and then get rid of all `extern mod` around the code.
Externally loaded libraries are able to do things that cause references
to them to survive past the expansion phase (e.g. creating @-box cycles,
launching a task or storing something in task local data). As such, the
library has to stay loaded for the lifetime of the process.
This patch replaces all `crate` usage with `krate` before introducing the
new keyword. This ensures that after introducing the keyword, there
won't be any compilation errors.
krate might not be the most expressive substitution for crate but it's a
very close abbreviation for it. `module` was already used in several
places already.
Repair a rather embarassingly obvious hole that I created as part of #9629. In particular, prevent `&mut` borrows of data in an aliasable location. This used to be prevented through the restrictions mechanism, but in #9629 I modified those rules incorrectly.
r? @pcwalton
Fixes#11913
fourcc!() allows you to embed FourCC (or OSType) values that are
evaluated as u32 literals. It takes a 4-byte ASCII string and produces
the u32 resulting in interpreting those 4 bytes as a u32, using either
the platform-native endianness, or explicitly as big or little endian.
Error messages cleaned in librustc/middle
Error messages cleaned in libsyntax
Error messages cleaned in libsyntax more agressively
Error messages cleaned in librustc more aggressively
Fixed affected tests
Fixed other failing tests
Last failing tests fixed
This has been a long time coming. Conditions in rust were initially envisioned
as being a good alternative to error code return pattern. The idea is that all
errors are fatal-by-default, and you can opt-in to handling the error by
registering an error handler.
While sounding nice, conditions ended up having some unforseen shortcomings:
* Actually handling an error has some very awkward syntax:
let mut result = None;
let mut answer = None;
io::io_error::cond.trap(|e| { result = Some(e) }).inside(|| {
answer = Some(some_io_operation());
});
match result {
Some(err) => { /* hit an I/O error */ }
None => {
let answer = answer.unwrap();
/* deal with the result of I/O */
}
}
This pattern can certainly use functions like io::result, but at its core
actually handling conditions is fairly difficult
* The "zero value" of a function is often confusing. One of the main ideas
behind using conditions was to change the signature of I/O functions. Instead
of read_be_u32() returning a result, it returned a u32. Errors were notified
via a condition, and if you caught the condition you understood that the "zero
value" returned is actually a garbage value. These zero values are often
difficult to understand, however.
One case of this is the read_bytes() function. The function takes an integer
length of the amount of bytes to read, and returns an array of that size. The
array may actually be shorter, however, if an error occurred.
Another case is fs::stat(). The theoretical "zero value" is a blank stat
struct, but it's a little awkward to create and return a zero'd out stat
struct on a call to stat().
In general, the return value of functions that can raise error are much more
natural when using a Result as opposed to an always-usable zero-value.
* Conditions impose a necessary runtime requirement on *all* I/O. In theory I/O
is as simple as calling read() and write(), but using conditions imposed the
restriction that a rust local task was required if you wanted to catch errors
with I/O. While certainly an surmountable difficulty, this was always a bit of
a thorn in the side of conditions.
* Functions raising conditions are not always clear that they are raising
conditions. This suffers a similar problem to exceptions where you don't
actually know whether a function raises a condition or not. The documentation
likely explains, but if someone retroactively adds a condition to a function
there's nothing forcing upstream users to acknowledge a new point of task
failure.
* Libaries using I/O are not guaranteed to correctly raise on conditions when an
error occurs. In developing various I/O libraries, it's much easier to just
return `None` from a read rather than raising an error. The silent contract of
"don't raise on EOF" was a little difficult to understand and threw a wrench
into the answer of the question "when do I raise a condition?"
Many of these difficulties can be overcome through documentation, examples, and
general practice. In the end, all of these difficulties added together ended up
being too overwhelming and improving various aspects didn't end up helping that
much.
A result-based I/O error handling strategy also has shortcomings, but the
cognitive burden is much smaller. The tooling necessary to make this strategy as
usable as conditions were is much smaller than the tooling necessary for
conditions.
Perhaps conditions may manifest themselves as a future entity, but for now
we're going to remove them from the standard library.
Closes#9795Closes#8968
This has been a long time coming. Conditions in rust were initially envisioned
as being a good alternative to error code return pattern. The idea is that all
errors are fatal-by-default, and you can opt-in to handling the error by
registering an error handler.
While sounding nice, conditions ended up having some unforseen shortcomings:
* Actually handling an error has some very awkward syntax:
let mut result = None;
let mut answer = None;
io::io_error::cond.trap(|e| { result = Some(e) }).inside(|| {
answer = Some(some_io_operation());
});
match result {
Some(err) => { /* hit an I/O error */ }
None => {
let answer = answer.unwrap();
/* deal with the result of I/O */
}
}
This pattern can certainly use functions like io::result, but at its core
actually handling conditions is fairly difficult
* The "zero value" of a function is often confusing. One of the main ideas
behind using conditions was to change the signature of I/O functions. Instead
of read_be_u32() returning a result, it returned a u32. Errors were notified
via a condition, and if you caught the condition you understood that the "zero
value" returned is actually a garbage value. These zero values are often
difficult to understand, however.
One case of this is the read_bytes() function. The function takes an integer
length of the amount of bytes to read, and returns an array of that size. The
array may actually be shorter, however, if an error occurred.
Another case is fs::stat(). The theoretical "zero value" is a blank stat
struct, but it's a little awkward to create and return a zero'd out stat
struct on a call to stat().
In general, the return value of functions that can raise error are much more
natural when using a Result as opposed to an always-usable zero-value.
* Conditions impose a necessary runtime requirement on *all* I/O. In theory I/O
is as simple as calling read() and write(), but using conditions imposed the
restriction that a rust local task was required if you wanted to catch errors
with I/O. While certainly an surmountable difficulty, this was always a bit of
a thorn in the side of conditions.
* Functions raising conditions are not always clear that they are raising
conditions. This suffers a similar problem to exceptions where you don't
actually know whether a function raises a condition or not. The documentation
likely explains, but if someone retroactively adds a condition to a function
there's nothing forcing upstream users to acknowledge a new point of task
failure.
* Libaries using I/O are not guaranteed to correctly raise on conditions when an
error occurs. In developing various I/O libraries, it's much easier to just
return `None` from a read rather than raising an error. The silent contract of
"don't raise on EOF" was a little difficult to understand and threw a wrench
into the answer of the question "when do I raise a condition?"
Many of these difficulties can be overcome through documentation, examples, and
general practice. In the end, all of these difficulties added together ended up
being too overwhelming and improving various aspects didn't end up helping that
much.
A result-based I/O error handling strategy also has shortcomings, but the
cognitive burden is much smaller. The tooling necessary to make this strategy as
usable as conditions were is much smaller than the tooling necessary for
conditions.
Perhaps conditions may manifest themselves as a future entity, but for now
we're going to remove them from the standard library.
Closes#9795Closes#8968
Alex Crichton