closes#194
The author of issue #194 suggests that the wording of the comment is at
least ambiguous about the desired results. I believe this change more
clearly describes the expectation of the exercise.
Add windows install script
Adds a powershell install script for windows users that are at least
running powershell 5. It is almost a direct port of install.sh.
This would be used to automatically download the script much like
curl | bash, but with:
`Invoke-WebRequest https://urltoscript.com | Select-Object
-ExpandProperty Content | Out-File $env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1;
Unblock-File $env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1; Invoke-Expression
$env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1`
Adds a powershell install script for windows users that are at least
running powershell 5. It is almost a direct port of install.sh.
This would be used to automatically download the script much like
curl | bash, but with:
`Invoke-WebRequest https://urltoscript.com | Select-Object
-ExpandProperty Content | Out-File $env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1;
Unblock-File $env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1; Invoke-Expression
$env:TMP/install_rustlings.ps1`
fix(errorsn.rs) Update the deprecated syntax by adding dyn to trait o…
fix(errorsn.rs) Update the deprecated syntax by adding dyn to trait objects.
closes#211
Related issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings/issues/211
fix(primitive_types4): Fail on a slice covering the wrong area
I noticed this issue and it seems like a similar one was raised/fixed in #160 this way. This is my first contribution to this repo (or any Rust project) so let me know if I messed up or need to fix anything!
---
This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the
slice given is equal to the expected slice.
The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the
user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax.
`rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific
println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not
`run`), they do not output the `println`s at all.
This fix is semantically similar to #198. It does not take a stance on
the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see #127. There are
likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
This commit converts primitive_types4 to a test and asserts that the
slice given is equal to the expected slice.
The intent of the primitive_types4 exercise appears to be to ensure the
user understands inclusive and exclusive bounds as well as slice syntax.
`rustlings` commands using `compile` do not verify that a specific
println is reached and, in the case of `watch` and `verify` (but not
`run`), they do not output the `println`s at all.
This fix is semantically similar to #198. It does not take a stance on
the correct way to handle this for all exercises; see #127. There are
likely other exercises whose intent are masked by this issue.
Suggest rustup update in readme
I'm pretty new to Rust. I tried installing rustlings for the first time and got this error:
```
$> cargo install --force --path .
error: `/Users/ajax/projects/rust/rustlings` is not a crate root; specify a crate to install from crates.io, or use --path or --git to specify an alternate source
Caused by:
failed to parse manifest at `/Users/ajax/projects/rust/rustlings/Cargo.toml`
Caused by:
editions are unstable
Caused by:
feature `edition` is required
this Cargo does not support nightly features, but if you
switch to nightly channel you can add
`cargo-features = ["edition"]` to enable this feature
```
I'm not sure if the answer was to run `rustup update` but I noticed that I was running Rust 1.29.0, so updated to 1.36.0 and got it working. If there's a way to specify a minimum required version, pls let me know.
Lastly, the whitespace changes were automatic from my editor. What's the convention here for making such updates? Thanks!
Fix iterators2
A couple of small changes to the `iterators2` exercise. @Jesse-Cameron, it looks like you contributed this exercise, so I wanted to check and see if these changes are in line with your intentions. Happy to adjust if they're not :)
fix(option1): Add test for prematurely passing exercise
Fixes the bug referenced in #160, but does not address the larger feature work referenced by the issue.
fix(test1): Swap assertion parameter order
`Expected` should come before `actual`, other wise it leads to confusing compiler messages, e.g.
```
note: expected type `()`
found type `{integer}`
```
There may be other tests that need updating, but this is as far as I am through the Rustlings course right now :)
`Expected` should come before `actual`, other wise it leads to confusing compiler messages, e.g.
```
note: expected type `()`
found type `{integer}`
```
feat(iterators2): adds iterators2 exercise including config
Hi there!
I really enjoyed doing the rustlings exercises so I thought that I would try to add an exercise!
This one just covers a couple of basic iterator operations. Getting people used to the `map` and `collect` functions.
However, it does feel kinda similar to the next exercise. So I may also revisit some of the tests in iterators3 if we think that is necessary.
chore: Fix a couple broken book links
While I was fixing these, I figured maybe it's good to just use a consistent URL for book links: https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/
Is there a plan for what to do with this old 1.4.0 example that doesn't exist in the current version of the book? Perhaps at least include a disclaimer when recommending that folks check it out?
34e31232df/exercises/threads/README.md (L1)
chore: Clean up some formatting in exercises
I noticed some formatting that isn't consistent with the `rustfmt` style and tried my best to run it on the files in the exercises directory (which does fail for files that can't compile!), which just caught some minor whitespace things here and there.
Note: also can't just apply `rustfmt` blindly because of the blank lines that lead to the hint comments
Fixes the irrefutable let pattern warning in `structs1.rs`
PR https://github.com/rust-lang/rustlings/pull/163 accidentally introduced an error using some versions of the Rust compiler where the compiler would (rightly!) complain about an irrefutable let pattern. I have no idea why this did not occur in all versions of the compiler, but here is a way around it.
fix(installation): Fix rustlings installation check
fixes#147
I did some quick testing with the `-x` check:
```sh
if [ -x "$(notrustlings)" ]
then
echo "notrustlings does not exist"
else
echo "notrustlings appears to exist!"
notrustlings
fi
```
which produced:
```
./test.sh: line 12: notrustlings: command not found
notrustlings appears to exist!
./test.sh: line 17: notrustlings: command not found
```
(consistent with comments in issue)
Using `if ! [ -x "$(command -v <command>)" ]` appears to be the standard way to perform this type of check.
