This is the first in a series of patches I'm working on to clean up the code related to `deriving`. This patch allows
```
#[deriving_eq]
#[deriving_iter_bytes]
#[deriving_clone]
struct Foo { bar: uint }
```
to be replaced with:
```
#[deriving(Eq, IterBytes, Clone)]
struct Foo { bar: uint }
```
It leaves the old attributes alone for the time being.
Eventually I'd like to incorporate the new closest-match-suggestion infrastructure for mistyped trait names, and also pass the sub-attributes to the deriving code, so that the following will be possible:
```
#[deriving(TotalOrd(qux, bar))]
struct Foo { bar: uint, baz: char, qux: int }
```
This says to derive an `impl` in which the objects' `qux` fields are compared first, followed by `bar`, while `baz` is ignored in the comparison. If no fields are specified explicitly, all fields will be compared in the order they're defined in the `struct`. This might also be useful for `Eq`. Coming soon.
Currently the opts_present() function only checks to see if the option is
configured in the match, but doesn't actually check to see if the option
value has been set. This means that opt_present('h') may return false while
opts_present([~'h']) returns true.
Add a test case to catch this condition and fix opts_present() to check
the value before returning true.
Note, there is another API difference between these two functions that this
does not address. Currently if you pass a non-configured option to
opt_present() the program will fail!(), but opts_present() simply returns
false. If it is acceptable to standardize on the fail!() then opts_present()
should probably be implemented in terms of the opt_present() function.
The `local_stage0.sh` script was not updated after commit 7dcbaed renamed
librustsyntax to libsyntax.
Currently, `./configure --enable-local-rust --local-rust-root=FOO && make` will
fail due to the missing libsyntax; this change corrects this.
This will allow you to use the `+` operator to add together any two
Options, assuming that the contents of each Option likewise implement
`+`. So Some(4) + Some(1) == Some(5), and adding with None leaves the
other value unchanged.
This might be monoidic? I don't know what that word means!
The local_stage0 script was not updated after commit 7dcbaed renamed
librustsyntax to libsyntax, so builds using local Rust fail due to
missing libsyntax.
These changes make const translation use adjustments (autodereference, autoreference, bare-fn-to-closure), like normal code does, replacing some ad-hoc logic that wasn't always right.
As a convenient side-effect, explicit dereference (both of pointers and of newtypes) is also supported in const expressions.
There is also a “bonus fix” for a bug in the pretty-printer exposed by one of the added tests.
r?
Followup to #5022. This is the same, but everything is in `core::rt` now. `std::uv_ll` is moved to `core::unstable::uvll`, with the intent that it eventually move into its own crate (blocked on #5192 at least). I've had to disable the uv tests because of #2064. All of `core::rt` is disabled on platforms that aren't mac or linux until I complete the windows thread local storage bindings and ARM context switching.
My immediate next priorities will be to fix#2064 and clean up the uv bindings, get everything building on all platforms.
Currently the opts_present() function only checks to see if the option is
configured in the match, but doesn't actually check to see if the option
value has been set. This means that opt_present('h') may return false while
opts_present([~'h']) returns true.
Add a test case to catch this condition and fix opts_present() to check
the value before returning true.
Note, there is another API difference between these two functions that this
does not address. Currently if you pass a non-configured option to
opt_present() the program will fail!(), but opts_present() simply returns
false. If it is acceptable to standardize on the fail!() then opts_present()
should probably be implemented in terms of the opt_present() function.
This will allow you to use the + operator to add together any two
Options, assuming that the contents of each Option likewise implement
+. So Some(4) + Some(1) == Some(5), and adding with None leaves the
other value unchanged.
This might be monoidic? I don't know what that word means!
This is due to the way different versions of gdb print out structs: older versions have them always spread out with fields on different lines, while newer versions will compactly print them on one line. This makes it hard for the output checker to verify the expected output.
