rustc: update the unnecessary parens lint for struct literals.

Things like `match X { x: 1 } { ... }` now need to be written with
parentheses, so the lint should avoid warning in cases like that.

This code used to cause an ICE

Closes #11677

This diff will look better once bors takes care of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/15183

@brson and I talked about it, and, if I commit this skeleton, I can submit PRs for each portion, without doing this silly "builds on previous PRs" stuff, and it shouldn't cause conflicts.

This lays out what I think the guide should cover, and in what order.  I haven't picked a cohesive project yet that shows all this off, but I think this progression of concepts is appropriate.

auto merge of #15166 : zookoatleastauthoritycom/rust/13570-add-see-below-to-a-reference-to-a-new-concept-2, r=huonw

This is the same patch as submitted to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13570 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/14124, but with @pnkfelix's comment (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/14124#issuecomment-42797536) addressed, and with reflow as a separate commit. I'm submitting it in case @steveklabnik hasn't yet merged a rewrite of the tutorial (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/13570#issuecomment-46864789), in which case this patch might as well be merged into the old tutorial.

This code used to cause an ICE

Closes #11677

Things like `match X { x: 1 } { ... }` now need to be written with
parentheses, so the lint should avoid warning in cases like that.

Built on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/15181. https://github.com/steveklabnik/rust/commit/e52719291183d7b4f691a1997c69fd75b8101b07 is the only new commit, you may want to review that separately.

I'm not sure if the car analogy is too glib.

Thanks @huonw

Thank you, @stormbrew!

We use re-exported pathes (e.g. std::io::Command) and original ones
(e.g. std::io::process::Command) together in examples now. Using
re-exported ones consistently avoids confusion.

Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.

This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.

Closes #14036.

[breaking-change]

r? @alexcrichton

Since procs do not have lifetime bounds, we must do this to maintain
safety.

This can break code that incorrectly captured references in procedure
types. Change such code to not do this, perhaps with a trait object
instead.

A better solution would be to add higher-rank lifetime support to procs.
However, this would be a lot of work for a feature we want to remove in
favor of unboxed closures. The corresponding "real fix" is #15067.

Closes #14036.

[breaking-change]

We use re-exported pathes (e.g. std::io::Command) and original ones
(e.g. std::io::process::Command) together in examples now. Using
re-exported ones consistently avoids confusion.
Signed-off-by: NOGINO Masanori <masanori.ogino@gmail.com>

@cmr rightfully points out that C macros are worse, and share the
same name.

Thanks @chris-morgan and @P1start! ❤

Most of the comments are available on the Task structure itself, but this commit
is aimed at making FFI-style usage of Rust tasks a little nicer.

Primarily, this commit enables re-use of tasks across multiple invocations. The
method `run` will no longer unconditionally destroy the task itself. Rather, the
task will be internally re-usable if the closure specified did not fail. Once a
task has failed once it is considered poisoned and it can never be used again.

Along the way I tried to document shortcomings of the current method of tearing
down a task, opening a few issues as well. For now none of the behavior is a
showstopper, but it's useful to acknowledge it. Also along the way I attempted
to remove as much `unsafe` code as possible, opting for safer abstractions.

Good call, @chris-morgan and @cmr!

Thanks @chris-morgan

Thanks @chris-morgan ❤

Most of the comments are available on the Task structure itself, but this commit
is aimed at making FFI-style usage of Rust tasks a little nicer.

Primarily, this commit enables re-use of tasks across multiple invocations. The
method `run` will no longer unconditionally destroy the task itself. Rather, the
task will be internally re-usable if the closure specified did not fail. Once a
task has failed once it is considered poisoned and it can never be used again.

Along the way I tried to document shortcomings of the current method of tearing
down a task, opening a few issues as well. For now none of the behavior is a
showstopper, but it's useful to acknowledge it. Also along the way I attempted
to remove as much `unsafe` code as possible, opting for safer abstractions.

Thanks @chris-morgan ❤

Thanks @chris-morgan ❤

Thanks @chris-morgan

Death to `here`!

Thanks @chris-morgan ❤

What's funny about this one is that spellcheck caught it, but for
some reason didn't give me the right suggestion, so I assumed that it
wasn't in my dictionary. Oh well.

Thanks @P1start! ❤

How could I forsake `rustdoc`? 😅

Thanks @huonw.

Thanks @huonw ❤

@chris-morgan and @huonw pointed out that even though the feature
is a proper noun, we're using it in a more generic sense here.

The JSON spec requires that these special values be serialized as "null"; the current serialization breaks any conformant JSON parser. So encoding needs to output "null",  `to_json` on floating-point types can return `Null` as well as `Number` values, and reading a `Null` value when specifically expecting a number should be interpreted as NaN. There's no way to round-trip Infinity through JSON.

This is my first attempt at both writing Rust and opening pull requests, so please dial your derp detector up to eleven when reviewing. A `rustc --test lib.rs` in `libserialize` passes all tests; a `make check` of the whole tree fails with the error below, but it doesn't look obviously related and the docs say that `make check` is known to be flaky on Windows.

    ---- [compile-fail] compile-fail/svh-change-significant-cfg.rs stdout ----
            task '[compile-fail] compile-fail/svh-change-significant-cfg.rs' failed at 'called `Result::
    unwrap()` on an `Err` value: couldn't create file (end of file (unknown error); path=i686-pc-mingw32
    \test\compile-fail\svh-a-base.err; mode=truncate; access=write)', C:\msys\home\Mike\rust\src\libcore
    \result.rs:545

Incidentally, it may just be my lack of familiarity with the language and its idioms, but the duplication between `Encoder`/`PrettyEncoder` had a distinct code smell to it. The size of the file (~3500 lines) also made it a bit hard to navigate. Has there been any discussion of refactoring and/or breaking it up? I couldn't find anything in Issues except the ancient #9028.

This commit removes superfluous to_string calls from various places

Signed-off-by: NOGINO Masanori <masanori.ogino@gmail.com>

This is built on top of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/15162 . https://github.com/steveklabnik/rust/commit/cccae83d922f5aade2b7cca96579521cc35ced59 is the only new commit, you may want to look at that rather than the whole diff.

Writing our first Rust program together. This is the most crucial step, so I go to a fairly deep level of detail. Future sections will move more quickly.

This commit removes superfluous to_string calls from various places

This has my voice *very strongly*. I'm not sure if it's too much. I'd find it okay if I had to tone it back, and I don't want it to be _too strong_, but clinical docs are boring.

It turns out that bindings introduced by 'for' loops were not treated hygienically. The fix for this is to make the 'for' expansion more like a macro; rather than expanding sub-pieces and then assembling them, we need to rewrite the for and then call expand again on the whole thing.

This PR includes a test and the fix.

It also contains a number of other things:
- unit tests for other forms of hygiene (currently ignored)
- a fix for the isaac.rs macro that (it turned out) was relying on capturing
- other miscellaneous cleanup and comments