This change applies the conventions to unwrap listed in [RFC 430][rfc] to rename
non-failing `unwrap` methods to `into_inner`. This is a breaking change, but all
`unwrap` methods are retained as `#[deprecated]` for the near future. To update
code rename `unwrap` method calls to `into_inner`.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/430
[breaking-change]
cc #19091
A slice iterator is isomorphic to a slice, just with a slightly
different form: storing start and end pointers rather than start pointer
and length. This patch reflects this by making converting between them
as easy as `iter.as_slice()` (or even `iter[]` if the shorter lifetime
is ok). That is, `slice.iter().as_slice() == slice`.
r? @aturon
A slice iterator is isomorphic to a slice, just with a slightly
different form: storing start and end pointers rather than start pointer
and length. This patch reflects this by making converting between them
as easy as `iter.as_slice()` (or even `iter[]` if the shorter lifetime
is ok). That is, `slice.iter().as_slice() == slice`.
It turns out that rustrt::at_exit() doesn't actually occur after all pthread
threads have exited (nor does atexit()), so there's not actually a known point
at which we can deallocate these keys. It's not super critical that we do so,
however, because we're about to exit anyway!
Closes#19280
It turns out that rustrt::at_exit() doesn't actually occur after all pthread
threads have exited (nor does atexit()), so there's not actually a known point
at which we can deallocate these keys. It's not super critical that we do so,
however, because we're about to exit anyway!
Closes#19280
"_" should keep the default syntax class (symbol, not word). This
allows, e.g., `forward-word' to behave in the familiar way, jumping to
underscores within a function or variable name.
Just like we do with AsSlice
This comes in handy when dealing with iterator-centric APIs (`IntoIterator`!) and you want to receive an `Iterator<S> where S: Str` argument. Without this PR, e.g. you can't receive `&["a", "b"].iter()` instead you'll have to type `&["a", "b"].iter().map(|&x| x)` (A similar thing happens with `&[String]`).
r? @aturon
Full disclaimer: I haven't run `make`/`make check` yet (All my cores are busy)
This commit removes the `std::local_data` module in favor of a new `std::thread_local`
module providing thread local storage. The module provides two variants of TLS:
one which owns its contents and one which is based on scoped references. Each
implementation has pros and cons listed in the documentation.
Both flavors have accessors through a function called `with` which yield a
reference to a closure provided. Both flavors also panic if a reference cannot
be yielded and provide a function to test whether an access would panic or not.
This is an implementation of [RFC 461][rfc] and full details can be found in
that RFC.
This is a breaking change due to the removal of the `std::local_data` module.
All users can migrate to the new tls system like so:
thread_local!(static FOO: Rc<RefCell<Option<T>>> = Rc::new(RefCell::new(None)))
The old `local_data` module inherently contained the `Rc<RefCell<Option<T>>>` as
an implementation detail which must now be explicitly stated by users.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/461
[breaking-change]
Whilst browsing the source for BinaryHeap, I saw a FIXME for implementing into_iter. I think, since the BinaryHeap is represented internally using just a Vec, just calling into_iter() on the BinaryHeap's data should be sufficient to do what we want here. If this actually isn't the right approach (e.g., I should write a struct MoveItems and appropriate implementation for BinaryHeap instead), let me know and I'll happily rework this.
Both of the tests that I have added pass. This is my first contribution to Rust, so please let me know any ways I can improve this PR!
This commit removes the `std::local_data` module in favor of a new
`std::thread_local` module providing thread local storage. The module provides
two variants of TLS: one which owns its contents and one which is based on
scoped references. Each implementation has pros and cons listed in the
documentation.
Both flavors have accessors through a function called `with` which yield a
reference to a closure provided. Both flavors also panic if a reference cannot
be yielded and provide a function to test whether an access would panic or not.
This is an implementation of [RFC 461][rfc] and full details can be found in
that RFC.
This is a breaking change due to the removal of the `std::local_data` module.
All users can migrate to the new thread local system like so:
thread_local!(static FOO: Rc<RefCell<Option<T>>> = Rc::new(RefCell::new(None)))
The old `local_data` module inherently contained the `Rc<RefCell<Option<T>>>` as
an implementation detail which must now be explicitly stated by users.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/461
[breaking-change]
A single impl supports all of `[T]`, `Vec<T>` and `CVec<T>`.
Once `Iterable` is implemented, we will prefer it to `SlicePrelude`.
But the `with_capacity()` part might become tricky.
This change applies the conventions to unwrap listed in [RFC 430][rfc] to rename
non-failing `unwrap` methods to `into_inner`. This is a breaking change, but all
`unwrap` methods are retained as `#[deprecated]` for the near future. To update
code rename `unwrap` method calls to `into_inner`.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/430
[breaking-change]
Closes#13159
cc #19091
This PR:
- makes rustdoc colour trait methods like other functions in search results;
- makes rustdoc display `extern crate` statements with the new `as` syntax instead of the old `=` syntax;
- changes rustdoc to list constants and statics in a way that is more similar to functions and modules and show their full definition and documentation on their own page, fixing #19046:
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.
This breaks code like
```
let t = (42i, 42i);
... t.0::<int> ...;
```
Change this code to not contain an unused type parameter. For example:
```
let t = (42i, 42i);
... t.0 ...;
```
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19096
[breaking-change]
r? @aturon
Catch a missed triple-slash in the docs for `std::os::args()`. Passes `make check`. (I've also eyeballed the rest of `libstd` with the aid of some funky regexes and haven't found anything similar.)
This is an initial API stabilization pass for `std::ascii`. Aside from
some renaming to match conversion conventions, and deprecations in favor
of using iterators directly, almost nothing is changed here. However,
the static case conversion tables that were previously public are now private.
The stabilization of the (rather large!) set of extension traits is left
to a follow-up pass, because we hope to land some more general machinery
that will provide the same functionality without custom traits.
[breaking-change]
These functions allow you to see how many weak and strong references
there are to an `Arc`, `Rc`, or an `rc::Weak`. Due to the design of
`Arc` it is not possible to get the number of weak references of an
arbitrary `arc::Weak`. Look in `arc.rs` for a more in-depth explanation.
On `arc::Arc` and `arc::Weak` these operations are wait-free and atomic.
This sort of information is useful for creating dynamically cleared caches for use in OS development, for example holding pages of files in memory until the address space is needed for something else.
This is a collection of misc issues I've run into while adding bindir & libdir support that aren't really bindir & libdir specific.
While I continue to fiddle with bindir and libdir bugs, I figured these might be useful for others to have merged.
The reason given didn't make any sense when I read it when reading through the docs. I think this is more clear. Please let me know it is also more correct.
The impl for [T] also works as impl for slices in general.
By generalizing the impl of StrVector for Vec<Str> to that for
AsSlice<Str>, it becomes much more generic.
Once Iterable is implemented, we will prefer it to AsSlice.
But the with_capacity() part might become tricky.
Signed-off-by: NODA, Kai <nodakai@gmail.com>
Richard Diamond
