rust/tests/ui/match/match-join.rs

// a good test that we merge paths correctly in the presence of a
// variable that's used before it's declared

fn my_panic() -> ! { panic!(); }

fn main() {
    match true { false => { my_panic(); } true => { } }

    println!("{}", x); //~ ERROR cannot find value `x` in this scope
    let x: isize;
}
Initialize all constraints to False Previously, typestate was initializing the init constraint for a declared-but-not-initialized variable (like x in "let x;") to False, but other constraints to Don't-know. This led to over-lenient results when a variable was used before declaration (see the included test case). Now, everything gets initialized to False in the prestate/poststate- finding phase, and Don't-know should only be used in pre/postconditions. This aspect of the algorithm really needs formalization (just on paper), but for now, this closes #700 2011-08-05 22:23:44 +00:00			`// a good test that we merge paths correctly in the presence of a`
			`// variable that's used before it's declared`

Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . \| xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change] 2014-10-09 19:17:22 +00:00			`fn my_panic() -> ! { panic!(); }`
Initialize all constraints to False Previously, typestate was initializing the init constraint for a declared-but-not-initialized variable (like x in "let x;") to False, but other constraints to Don't-know. This led to over-lenient results when a variable was used before declaration (see the included test case). Now, everything gets initialized to False in the prestate/poststate- finding phase, and Don't-know should only be used in pre/postconditions. This aspect of the algorithm really needs formalization (just on paper), but for now, this closes #700 2011-08-05 22:23:44 +00:00
			`fn main() {`
Rename fail! to panic! https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/221 The current terminology of "task failure" often causes problems when writing or speaking about code. You often want to talk about the possibility of an operation that returns a Result "failing", but cannot because of the ambiguity with task failure. Instead, you have to speak of "the failing case" or "when the operation does not succeed" or other circumlocutions. Likewise, we use a "Failure" header in rustdoc to describe when operations may fail the task, but it would often be helpful to separate out a section describing the "Err-producing" case. We have been steadily moving away from task failure and toward Result as an error-handling mechanism, so we should optimize our terminology accordingly: Result-producing functions should be easy to describe. To update your code, rename any call to `fail!` to `panic!` instead. Assuming you have not created your own macro named `panic!`, this will work on UNIX based systems: grep -lZR 'fail!' . \| xargs -0 -l sed -i -e 's/fail!/panic!/g' You can of course also do this by hand. [breaking-change] 2014-10-09 19:17:22 +00:00			`match true { false => { my_panic(); } true => { } }`
Initialize all constraints to False Previously, typestate was initializing the init constraint for a declared-but-not-initialized variable (like x in "let x;") to False, but other constraints to Don't-know. This led to over-lenient results when a variable was used before declaration (see the included test case). Now, everything gets initialized to False in the prestate/poststate- finding phase, and Don't-know should only be used in pre/postconditions. This aspect of the algorithm really needs formalization (just on paper), but for now, this closes #700 2011-08-05 22:23:44 +00:00
resolve: Do not use "resolve"/"resolution" in error messages 2017-01-11 22:18:08 +00:00			println!("{}", x); //~ ERROR cannot find value `x` in this scope
Update compile fail tests to use isize. 2015-01-08 10:54:35 +00:00			`let x: isize;`
Reformat This changes the indexing syntax from .() to [], the vector syntax from ~[] to [] and the extension syntax from #fmt() to #fmt[] 2011-08-19 22:16:48 +00:00			`}`