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

librustc: Eliminate the ref syntax for unboxed closure capture clauses #17519

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Sep 29, 2014

Conversation

pcwalton
Copy link
Contributor

in favor of move.

This breaks code that used move as an identifier, because it is now a
keyword. Change such identifiers to not use the keyword move.
Additionally, this breaks code that was counting on by-value or
by-reference capture semantics for unboxed closures (behind the feature
gate). Change ref |:| to |:| and |:| to move |:|.

Part of RFC #63; part of issue #12831.

[breaking-change]

r? @nikomatsakis

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

warning Warning warning

  • These commits modify unsafe code. Please review it carefully!

in favor of `move`.

This breaks code that used `move` as an identifier, because it is now a
keyword. Change such identifiers to not use the keyword `move`.
Additionally, this breaks code that was counting on by-value or
by-reference capture semantics for unboxed closures (behind the feature
gate). Change `ref |:|` to `|:|` and `|:|` to `move |:|`.

Part of RFC rust-lang#63; part of issue rust-lang#12831.

[breaking-change]
alexcrichton added a commit to alexcrichton/rust that referenced this pull request Sep 29, 2014
@bors bors merged commit 2257e23 into rust-lang:master Sep 29, 2014
lnicola pushed a commit to lnicola/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 11, 2024
internal: Move dylib version stuff to proc-macro-srv

The client no longer reads the proc-macro versions, so this has no need to be in the api crate
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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants