-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
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 mentions of the old tilde owned pointer syntax #25085
Conversation
r? @Aatch (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
@@ -1125,7 +1125,7 @@ impl<'d,'t,'tcx,TYPER:mc::Typer<'tcx>> ExprUseVisitor<'d,'t,'tcx,TYPER> { | |||
// that case we can adjust the length of the | |||
// original vec accordingly, but we'd have to | |||
// make trans do the right thing, and it would | |||
// only work for `~` vectors. It seems simpler | |||
// only work for `Vec`s. It seems simpler |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Technically this would be refererring to Box<[T]>
types, as Vec
isn't a built-in type that the compiler should know about.
Seems ok to me, other than those small things I mentioned. Though I'm not sure about some of the other places where the choice of Techncially, the closest equivalent to |
@@ -202,7 +200,7 @@ impl<'tcx> TypeMap<'tcx> { | |||
} | |||
}, | |||
ty::ty_uniq(inner_type) => { | |||
unique_type_id.push('~'); | |||
unique_type_id.push_str("Box "); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wouldn't the lowercase version for the box syntax make more sense here?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no idea, sounds plausible to me! Change incoming.
@bors: r+ rollup |
📌 Commit abc0017 has been approved by |
@bors: -rollup |
let's keep this on its own since it modifies tests and the queue isn't very full |
…teveklabnik There were still some mentions of `~[T]` and `~T`, mostly in comments and debugging statements. I tried to do my best to preserve meaning, but I might have gotten some wrong-- I'm happy to fix anything :)
@bors: rollup- |
…teveklabnik There were still some mentions of `~[T]` and `~T`, mostly in comments and debugging statements. I tried to do my best to preserve meaning, but I might have gotten some wrong-- I'm happy to fix anything :)
There were still some mentions of `~[T]` and `~T`, mostly in comments and debugging statements. I tried to do my best to preserve meaning, but I might have gotten some wrong-- I'm happy to fix anything :)
There were still some mentions of
~[T]
and~T
, mostly in comments and debugging statements. I tried to do my best to preserve meaning, but I might have gotten some wrong-- I'm happy to fix anything :)