Skip to content

bigint: Remove parse_bytes method #22

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Nov 4, 2014
Merged

bigint: Remove parse_bytes method #22

merged 3 commits into from
Nov 4, 2014

Conversation

gifnksm
Copy link
Contributor

@gifnksm gifnksm commented Nov 4, 2014

The first commit follows the changes of "Separate string->integer implementation in strconv" (rust-lang/rust@138b76b)

This PR also contains some minor improvements (second and third commits)

@gifnksm gifnksm changed the title bigint: Remove parse_bytes method a bigint: Remove parse_bytes method Nov 4, 2014
@gifnksm gifnksm changed the title bigint: Remove parse_bytes method bigint: Remove parse_bytes method Nov 4, 2014
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Contributor

Could you rebase this after #21 now? It looks like the method didn't have to be removed entirely.

This follows the changes of "Separate string->integer implementation in strconv" (rust-lang/rust@138b76b).
This allows `parse_bytes` to be removed without breaking `libnum` code.
@gifnksm
Copy link
Contributor Author

gifnksm commented Nov 4, 2014

@alexcrichton rebased.
Leave parse_bytes as a wrapper of from_str_radix instead of removing it.

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Contributor

Thanks!

alexcrichton added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 4, 2014
bigint: Remove `parse_bytes` method
@alexcrichton alexcrichton merged commit b27db91 into rust-num:master Nov 4, 2014
remexre pushed a commit to remexre/num that referenced this pull request Jun 1, 2017
This resolves rust-num#22, resolves rust-num#29, and resolves rust-num#30.

* The reported error code is now `MissingField`, not `ExpectedSomeValue`.
* A missing `()` field now causes a `MissingField` error.
* A missing `Vec<_>` field now causes a `MissingField` error.

Tests have been updated to check these cases.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants