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]

src/doc/complement-design-faq.md

@@ -94,9 +94,9 @@ code should need to run is a stack.
 
 `match` being exhaustive has some useful properties. First, if every
 possibility is covered by the `match`, adding further variants to the `enum`
-in the future will prompt a compilation failure, rather than runtime failure.
+in the future will prompt a compilation failure, rather than runtime panic.
 Second, it makes cost explicit. In general, only safe way to have a
-non-exhaustive match would be to fail the task if nothing is matched, though
+non-exhaustive match would be to panic the task if nothing is matched, though
 it could fall through if the type of the `match` expression is `()`. This sort
 of hidden cost and special casing is against the language's philosophy. It's
 easy to ignore certain cases by using the `_` wildcard: