| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
spastorino noticed some silly expressions like `item_id.def_id.def_id`.
This commit renames several `def_id: OwnerId` fields as `owner_id`, so
those expressions become `item_id.owner_id.def_id`.
`item_id.owner_id.local_def_id` would be even clearer, but the use of
`def_id` for values of type `LocalDefId` is *very* widespread, so I left
that alone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
|
|
|
|
There are a few places were we have to construct it, though, and a few
places that are more invasive to change. To do this, we create a
constructor with a long obvious name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Improve wording of the `drop_bounds` lint
This PR addresses #86653. The issue is sort of a false positive of the `drop_bounds` lint, but I would argue that the best solution for #86653 is simply a rewording of the warning message and lint description, because even if the lint is _technically_ wrong, it still forces the programmer to think about what they are doing, and they can always use `#[allow(drop_bounds)]` if they think that they really need the `Drop` bound.
There are two issues with the current warning message and lint description:
- First, it says that `Drop` bounds are "useless", which is technically incorrect because they actually do have the effect of allowing you e.g. to call methods that also have a `Drop` bound on their generic arguments for some reason. I have changed the wording to emphasize not that the bound is "useless", but that it is most likely not what was intended.
- Second, it claims that `std::mem::needs_drop` detects whether a type has a destructor. But I think this is also technically wrong: The `Drop` bound says whether the type has a destructor or not, whereas `std::mem::needs_drop` also takes nested types with destructors into account, even if the top-level type does not itself have one (although I'm not 100% sure about the exact terminology here, i.e. whether the "drop glue" of the top-level type counts as a destructor or not).
cc `@jonhoo,` does this solve the issue for you?
r? `@GuillaumeGomez`
|
|
|
|
Based on the conversation in #86747.
Explanation
-----------
A trait object bound of the form `dyn Drop` is most likely misleading
and not what the programmer intended.
`Drop` bounds do not actually indicate whether a type can be trivially
dropped or not, because a composite type containing `Drop` types does
not necessarily implement `Drop` itself. Naïvely, one might be tempted
to write a deferred drop system, to pull cleaning up memory out of a
latency-sensitive code path, using `dyn Drop` trait objects. However,
this breaks down e.g. when `T` is `String`, which does not implement
`Drop`, but should probably be accepted.
To write a trait object bound that accepts anything, use a placeholder
trait with a blanket implementation.
```rust
trait Placeholder {}
impl<T> Placeholder for T {}
fn foo(_x: Box<dyn Placeholder>) {}
```
|
|
|
|
Items are guaranteed to be HIR owner.
|
|
|
|
|
