Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix make dist #1445

Closed
brson opened this issue Jan 5, 2012 · 1 comment
Closed

Fix make dist #1445

brson opened this issue Jan 5, 2012 · 1 comment

Comments

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jan 5, 2012

Make dist probably doesn't work anymore, and we need it before doing a release.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor Author

brson commented Jan 7, 2012

90c07f3 disables automatic submodule management when there's no git repo

@ghost ghost assigned graydon Jan 10, 2012
nikomatsakis added a commit to nikomatsakis/rust that referenced this issue Mar 25, 2016
This is a [breaking-change]: according to RFC rust-lang#1445, constants used as
patterns must be of a type that *derives* `Eq`. If you encounter a
problem, you are most likely using a constant in an expression where the
type of the constant is some struct that does not currently implement
`Eq`. Something like the following:

```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;

match foo {
    SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

The easiest and most future compatible fix is to annotate the type in
question with `#[derive(Eq)]` (note that merely *implementing* `Eq` is
not enough, it must be *derived*):

```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;

match foo {
    SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

Another good option is to rewrite the match arm to use an `if`
condition (this is also particularly good for floating point types,
which implement `PartialEq` but not `Eq`):

```rust
match foo {
    c if c == SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

Finally, a third alternative is to tag the type with
`#[structural_match]`; but this is not recommended, as the attribute is
never expected to be stabilized. Please see RFC rust-lang#1445 for more details.
nikomatsakis added a commit to nikomatsakis/rust that referenced this issue Mar 25, 2016
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this issue Mar 26, 2016
…patterns-2, r=pnkfelix

Restrict constants in patterns

This implements [RFC 1445](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1445-restrict-constants-in-patterns.md). The primary change is to limit the types of constants used in patterns to those that *derive* `Eq` (note that implementing `Eq` is not sufficient). This has two main effects:

1. Floating point constants are linted, and will eventually be disallowed. This is because floating point constants do not implement `Eq` but only `PartialEq`. This check replaces the existing special case code that aimed to detect the use of `NaN`.
2. Structs and enums must derive `Eq` to be usable within a match.

This is a [breaking-change]: if you encounter a problem, you are most likely using a constant in an expression where the type of the constant is some struct that does not currently implement
`Eq`. Something like the following:

```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;

match foo {
    SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

The easiest and most future compatible fix is to annotate the type in question with `#[derive(Eq)]` (note that merely *implementing* `Eq` is not enough, it must be *derived*):

```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;

match foo {
    SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

Another good option is to rewrite the match arm to use an `if` condition (this is also particularly good for floating point types, which implement `PartialEq` but not `Eq`):

```rust
match foo {
    c if c == SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

Finally, a third alternative is to tag the type with `#[structural_match]`; but this is not recommended, as the attribute is never expected to be stabilized. Please see RFC rust-lang#1445 for more details.

cc rust-lang#31434

r? @pnkfelix
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this issue Mar 26, 2016
…patterns-2, r=pnkfelix

Restrict constants in patterns

This implements [RFC 1445](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1445-restrict-constants-in-patterns.md). The primary change is to limit the types of constants used in patterns to those that *derive* `Eq` (note that implementing `Eq` is not sufficient). This has two main effects:

1. Floating point constants are linted, and will eventually be disallowed. This is because floating point constants do not implement `Eq` but only `PartialEq`. This check replaces the existing special case code that aimed to detect the use of `NaN`.
2. Structs and enums must derive `Eq` to be usable within a match.

This is a [breaking-change]: if you encounter a problem, you are most likely using a constant in an expression where the type of the constant is some struct that does not currently implement
`Eq`. Something like the following:

```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;

match foo {
    SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

The easiest and most future compatible fix is to annotate the type in question with `#[derive(Eq)]` (note that merely *implementing* `Eq` is not enough, it must be *derived*):

```rust
struct SomeType { ... }
const SOME_CONST: SomeType = ...;

match foo {
    SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

Another good option is to rewrite the match arm to use an `if` condition (this is also particularly good for floating point types, which implement `PartialEq` but not `Eq`):

```rust
match foo {
    c if c == SOME_CONST => ...
}
```

Finally, a third alternative is to tag the type with `#[structural_match]`; but this is not recommended, as the attribute is never expected to be stabilized. Please see RFC rust-lang#1445 for more details.

cc rust-lang#31434

r? @pnkfelix
bjorn3 added a commit to bjorn3/rust that referenced this issue Jan 26, 2024
Kobzol pushed a commit to Kobzol/rust that referenced this issue Dec 30, 2024
bors pushed a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this issue Jan 2, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants