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]
The test harness will make sure that the panic message contains the
specified string. This is useful to help make `#[should_fail]` tests a
bit less brittle by decreasing the chance that the test isn't
"accidentally" passing due to a panic occurring earlier than expected.
The behavior is in some ways similar to JUnit's `expected` feature:
`@Test(expected=NullPointerException.class)`.
Without the message assertion, this test would pass even though it's not
actually reaching the intended part of the code:
```rust
#[test]
#[should_fail(message = "out of bounds")]
fn test_oob_array_access() {
let idx: uint = from_str("13o").unwrap(); // oops, this will panic
[1i32, 2, 3][idx];
}
```
In regards to:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/19253#issuecomment-64836729
This commit:
* Changes the #deriving code so that it generates code that utilizes fewer
reexports (in particur Option::* and Result::*), which is necessary to
remove those reexports in the future
* Changes other areas of the codebase so that fewer reexports are utilized
Using `and` here instead of `but` sounds better to me, as but makes it sound like an item which is still under active development shouldn't normally require more testing, but this one does - or something like that :-)
@steveklabnik?
This is a work in progress, but this should get *extensive* review, so I'm putting it up early and often.
This is the start of a draft of the new 'ownership guide,' which explains ownership, borrowing, etc. I'm feeling better about this framing than last time's, but we'll see.
The "Returning Pointers" section of the pointers guide broke from the convention of putting code between backticks. This PR fixes that. There's also a little trailing whitespace I took care of.
