Unbox more closures in the libraries #20363
Merged
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+. Giving high priority as this is an urgent language change. |
added 21 commits
December 31, 2014 22:50
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 1, 2015
The the last argument of the `ItemDecorator::expand` method has changed to `Box<FnMut>`. Syntax extensions will break. [breaking-change] --- This PR removes pretty much all the remaining uses of boxed closures from the libraries. There are still boxed closures under the `test` directory, but I think those should be removed or replaced with unboxed closures at the same time we remove boxed closures from the language. In a few places I had to do some contortions (see the first commit for an example) to work around issue #19596. I have marked those workarounds with FIXMEs. In the future when `&mut F where F: FnMut` implements the `FnMut` trait, we should be able to remove those workarounds. I've take care to avoid placing the workaround functions in the public API. Since `let f = || {}` always gets type checked as a boxed closure, I have explictly annotated those closures (with e.g. `|&:| {}`) to force the compiler to type check them as unboxed closures. Instead of removing the type aliases (like `GetCrateDataCb`), I could have replaced them with newtypes. But this seemed like overcomplicating things for little to no gain. I think we should be able to remove the boxed closures from the languge after this PR lands. (I'm being optimistic here) r? @alexcrichton or @aturon cc @nikomatsakis
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The the last argument of the
ItemDecorator::expandmethod has changed toBox<FnMut>. Syntax extensions will break.[breaking-change]
This PR removes pretty much all the remaining uses of boxed closures from the libraries. There are still boxed closures under the
testdirectory, but I think those should be removed or replaced with unboxed closures at the same time we remove boxed closures from the language.In a few places I had to do some contortions (see the first commit for an example) to work around issue #19596. I have marked those workarounds with FIXMEs. In the future when
&mut F where F: FnMutimplements theFnMuttrait, we should be able to remove those workarounds. I've take care to avoid placing the workaround functions in the public API.Since
let f = || {}always gets type checked as a boxed closure, I have explictly annotated those closures (with e.g.|&:| {}) to force the compiler to type check them as unboxed closures.Instead of removing the type aliases (like
GetCrateDataCb), I could have replaced them with newtypes. But this seemed like overcomplicating things for little to no gain.I think we should be able to remove the boxed closures from the languge after this PR lands. (I'm being optimistic here)
r? @alexcrichton or @aturon
cc @nikomatsakis