| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|
resolve: Collapse `macro_rules` scope chains on the fly
Otherwise they grow too long and you have to endlessly walk through them when resolving macros or imports.
Addresses https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/247081-t-compiler.2Fperformance/topic/Slow.20Builtin.20Derives/near/215750815
|
|
Co-authored-by: varkor <github@varkor.com>
|
|
|
|
Suggest calling associated `fn` inside `trait`s
When calling a function that doesn't exist inside of a trait's
associated `fn`, and another associated `fn` in that trait has that
name, suggest calling it with the appropriate fully-qualified path.
Expand the label to be more descriptive.
Prompted by the following user experience:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/cannot-find-function/50663
|
|
|
|
When calling a function that doesn't exist inside of a trait's
associated `fn`, and another associated `fn` in that trait has that
name, suggest calling it with the appropriate fully-qualified path.
Expand the label to be more descriptive.
Prompted by the following user experience:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/cannot-find-function/50663
|
|
|
|
It would incorrectly suggest adding it as a parameter to the closure instead of the
containing function.
|
|
|
|
Fix #75829
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Give better diagnostic when using a private tuple struct constructor
Fixes #75907
Some notes:
1. This required some deep changes, including removing a Copy impl for PatKind. If some tests fail, I would still appreciate review on the overall approach
2. this only works with basic patterns (no wildcards for example), and fails if there is any problems getting the visibility of the fields (i am not sure what the failure that can happen in resolve_visibility_speculative, but we check the length of our fields in both cases against each other, so if anything goes wrong, we fall back to the worse error. This could be extended to more patterns
3. this does not yet deal with #75906, but I believe it will be similar
4. let me know if you want more tests
5. doesn't yet at the suggestion that `@yoshuawuyts` suggested at the end of their issue, but that could be added relatively easily (i believe)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detect potential cases where `if let` was meant but `let` was left out.
Fix #44990.
|
|
|