desugaring-based box placement-in (take-4 branch) #26180
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
r? @sfackler (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
Feel free to reassign. Also, you've already looked at much of this before, so feel free to ask me to point out the bits that are most different. Actually, let me try to do some of that off the bat; the newest parts of this are:
|
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #26192) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
update test/compile-fail/feature-gate-box-expr.rs to reflect new feature gates. Part of what lands with Issue 22181.
See discussion on Issue 22231.
Namely: * Update run-pass/new-box-syntax * Fix doc-embedded test for `alloc::boxed` to reflect new syntax. * Fix test/debuginfo/box.rs to reflect new syntax. Part of what lands with Issue 22181.
…t suite. Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
Precursor for overloaded-`box` and placement-`in`; see Issue 22181.
… depth. This is a total hack; it not only needs a feature-gate, but probably should be feature-gated forever (if possible). ignore-pretty in test/run-pass/pushpop-unsafe-okay.rs
…dest`. rebase update to typeck/check/mod.rs
in effort to understand treatment of `allow_internal_unstable`.
… box protocol. Actually for some reason I opted for type-annotations for most of this. (And that's really what I should have been striving for in the other commits, but its just easier to write `Box::new` most of the time.)
Precursor for landing overloaded-box, since that will decouple the box syntax from the exchange heap (and should eliminate the use of the `malloc` and `free` lang items). (This is a simplified approach to PR rust-lang#22499; note that I have once again changes which lang item to use for the illustration.)
pnkfelix
force-pushed
the
fsk-box-placer-take-4
branch
from
dca3dcf
to
a61490c
Compare
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #26955) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
@pnkfelix let's talk about this branch; I liked the idea of isolating out the placement new work and landing that first to avoid |
|
@nikomatsakis yeah I have just finished factoring the |
|
Nice. Niko -------- Original message -------- From: Felix S Klock II notifications@github.com Date:07/21/2015 12:21 (GMT-05:00) To: rust-lang/rust rust@noreply.github.com Cc: Niko Matsakis niko@alum.mit.edu Subject: Re: [rust] desugaring-based box placement-in (take-4 branch) (#26180) — |
|
closing in favor of PR #27215. |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 24, 2015
…akis
Macro desugaring of `in PLACE { BLOCK }` into "simpler" expressions following the in-development "Placer" protocol.
Includes Placer API that one can override to integrate support for `in` into one's own type. (See [RFC 809].)
[RFC 809]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0809-box-and-in-for-stdlib.md
Part of #22181
Replaced PR #26180.
Turns on the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax, while leaving in support for the old `box (PLACE) EXPR` syntax (since we need to support that at least until we have a snapshot with support for `in PLACE { BLOCK }`.
(Note that we are not 100% committed to the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax. In particular I still want to play around with some other alternatives. Still, I want to get the fundamental framework for the protocol landed so we can play with implementing it for non `Box` types.)
----
Also, this PR leaves out support for desugaring-based `box EXPR`. We will hopefully land that in the future, but for the short term there are type-inference issues injected by that change that we want to resolve separately.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Macro-desugaring of
boxand placement-boxinto "simpler" expressions.Includes
PlacerAPI that one can override to integrate support forboxinto one's own type.Part of #22181
Does not turn on the
in <place-expr> { <block> ... }syntax proposed in rust-lang/rfcs#809 , so there is still more to be done in that area. But I wanted to get this into the review pipeline now, since it is more invasive than we originally anticipated it being.