rust/tests/ui/array-slice-vec/vec-matching-autoslice.rs

// run-pass
#![allow(illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern)] // FIXME #41620

pub fn main() {
    let x = [1, 2, 3];
    match x {
        [2, _, _] => panic!(),
        [1, a, b] => {
            assert_eq!([a, b], [2, 3]);
        }
        [_, _, _] => panic!(),
    }

    let y = ([(1, true), (2, false)], 0.5f64);
    match y {
        ([(1, a), (b, false)], _) => {
            assert_eq!(a, true);
            assert_eq!(b, 2);
        }
        ([_, _], 0.5) => panic!(),
        ([_, _], _) => panic!(),
    }
}
Add `// run-pass` annotations to all the tests under `ui/run-pass/`. (I may have accidentally added it to some auxilliary crates as well; my emacs-macro-based methodology was pretty crude.) 2018-08-30 12:18:55 +00:00			`// run-pass`
Allow illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern. These will need to be updated at some point. Discussion can be found on rust-lang/rust#41620. 2018-08-31 13:28:26 +00:00			`#![allow(illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern)] // FIXME #41620`
Add `// run-pass` annotations to all the tests under `ui/run-pass/`. (I may have accidentally added it to some auxilliary crates as well; my emacs-macro-based methodology was pretty crude.) 2018-08-30 12:18:55 +00:00
check-fast fallout from removing export, r=burningtree 2013-02-02 03:43:17 +00:00			`pub fn main() {`
Remove all `i` suffixes 2015-01-25 21:05:03 +00:00			`let x = [1, 2, 3];`
Add more tests 2012-12-15 23:13:55 +00:00			`match x {`
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			`[2, _, _] => panic!(),`
librustc: Remove unique vector patterns from the language. Preparatory work for removing unique vectors from the language, which is itself preparatory work for dynamically sized types. 2014-02-13 17:46:46 +00:00			`[1, a, b] => {`
Use `assert_eq!` instead of `assert!` in tests 2015-06-07 18:00:38 +00:00			`assert_eq!([a, b], [2, 3]);`
Add more tests 2012-12-15 23:13:55 +00:00			`}`
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			`[_, _, _] => panic!(),`
Add more tests 2012-12-15 23:13:55 +00:00			`}`

Remove all `i` suffixes 2015-01-25 21:05:03 +00:00			`let y = ([(1, true), (2, false)], 0.5f64);`
Add more tests 2012-12-15 23:13:55 +00:00			`match y {`
librustc: Remove unique vector patterns from the language. Preparatory work for removing unique vectors from the language, which is itself preparatory work for dynamically sized types. 2014-02-13 17:46:46 +00:00			`([(1, a), (b, false)], _) => {`
Use assert_eq! rather than assert! where possible 2013-05-19 02:02:45 +00:00			`assert_eq!(a, true);`
			`assert_eq!(b, 2);`
Add more tests 2012-12-15 23:13:55 +00:00			`}`
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			`([_, _], 0.5) => panic!(),`
			`([_, _], _) => panic!(),`
Add more tests 2012-12-15 23:13:55 +00:00			`}`
			`}`