-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
Remove structural records #3089
Comments
Really? Why? Has it been decided to move to nominal for everything? Or does 'structural records' just not mean what I think it means in the context of this issue? |
It has been decided. The primary reason is because they don't work well with the new impl coherence rules. In particular, I believe it's not possible to define anonymous impls (that don't fulfill explicit traits) for structural records because no module is responsible for defining the type. |
The fix is straight-forward, but there are several changes while fixing the issue. 1) disallow `mut` keyword when making a new struct In code base, there are following code, struct Foo { mut a: int }; let a = Foo { mut a: 1 }; This is because of structural record, which is deprecated corrently (see issue rust-lang#3089) In structural record, `mut` keyword should be allowd to control mutability. But without structural record, we don't need to allow `mut` keyword while constructing struct. 2) disallow structural records in parser level This is related to 1). With structural records, there is an ambiguity between empty block and empty struct To solve the problem, I change parser to stop parsing structural records. I think this is not a problem, because structural records are not compiled already. Misc. issues There is an ambiguity between empty struct vs. empty match stmt. with following code, match x{} {} Two interpretation is possible, which is listed blow match (x{}) {} // matching with newly-constructed empty struct (match x{}) {} // matching with empty enum(or struct) x // and then empty block It seems that there is no such code in rust code base, but there is one test which uses empty match statement: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/blob/incoming/src/test/run-pass/issue-3037.rs All other cases could be distinguished with look-ahead, but this can't be. One possible solution is wrapping with parentheses when matching with an uninhabited type. enum what { } fn match_with_empty(x: what) -> ~str { match (x) { //use parentheses to remove the ambiguity } }
The fix is straight-forward, but there are several changes while fixing the issue. 1) disallow `mut` keyword when making a new struct In code base, there are following code, ```rust struct Foo { mut a: int }; let a = Foo { mut a: 1 }; ``` This is because of structural record, which is deprecated corrently (see issue #3089) In structural record, `mut` keyword should be allowd to control mutability. But without structural record, we don't need to allow `mut` keyword while constructing struct. 2) disallow structural records in parser level This is related to 1). With structural records, there is an ambiguity between empty block and empty struct To solve the problem, I change parser to stop parsing structural records. I think this is not a problem, because structural records are not compiled already. Misc. issues There is an ambiguity between empty struct vs. empty match stmt. with following code, ```rust match x{} {} ``` Two interpretation is possible, which is listed blow ```rust match (x{}) {} // matching with newly-constructed empty struct (match x{}) {} // matching with empty enum(or struct) x // and then empty block ``` It seems that there is no such code in rust code base, but there is one test which uses empty match statement: https://github.com/mozilla/rust/blob/incoming/src/test/run-pass/issue-3037.rs All other cases could be distinguished with look-ahead, but this can't be. One possible solution is wrapping with parentheses when matching with an uninhabited type. ```rust enum what { } fn match_with_empty(x: what) -> ~str { match (x) { //use parentheses to remove the ambiguity } } ```
I think this can be closed now. |
Yay! |
Add format_doc_comments
Automatic sync from rustc
No description provided.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: