| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
available
|
|
|
|
do not reverse the expected type and found type for ObligationCauseCo…
…de of IfExpressionWithNoElse
this will fix #102397
|
|
Suggest `==` to wrong assign expr
Given the following code:
```rust
fn main() {
let x = 3;
let y = 3;
if x == x && y = y {
println!("{}", x);
}
}
```
Current output is:
```
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:18
|
4 | if x == x && y = y {
| ^ expected `bool`, found integer
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:4:8
|
4 | if x == x && y = y {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `bool`, found `()`
```
This adds a suggestion:
```diff
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:6:18
|
6 | if x == x && y = y {
| ^ expected `bool`, found integer
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs:6:8
|
6 | if x == x && y = y {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ expected `bool`, found `()`
|
+ help: you might have meant to compare for equality
+ |
+ 6 | if x == x && y == y {
+ | +
```
And this fixes a part of #97469
|
|
IfExpressionWithNoElse
this will fix #102397
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This reverts commit 326646074940222d602f3683d0559088690830f4.
This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Be more thorough in using `ItemObligation` and `BindingObligation` when
evaluating obligations so that we can point at trait bounds that
introduced unfulfilled obligations. We no longer incorrectly point at
unrelated trait bounds (`substs-ppaux.verbose.stderr`).
In particular, we now point at trait bounds on method calls.
We no longer point at "obvious" obligation sources (we no longer have a
note pointing at `Trait` saying "required by a bound in `Trait`", like
in `associated-types-no-suitable-supertrait*`).
Address part of #89418.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
|
|
|
|
* On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format
* When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline
* Color highlight modified span
|
|
* Use more accurate span for `async move` suggestion
* Use more accurate span for deref suggestion
* Use `multipart_suggestion` more often
|
|
When there are multiple macros in use, it can be difficult to tell
which one was responsible for producing an error.
|
|
|
|
Replace if-let and while-let with `if let` and `while let`
This pull request replaces if-let and while-let with `if let` and `while let`.
closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/82205
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, the order of evaluation *does* change depending on the types of
the operands. Cursed, I know.
I've elected to place this test into `expr/compound-assignment` creating
both the `expr` directory and the `compound-assignment` directory. I
plan in a future PR to also move the `if` directory and the loose `if`
tests into `expr/if` and other similar cleanups of the `test/ui`
directory.
Future work: Test more than just `+=`, but all operators. I don't know
if using a macro to generate these tests cases would be okay or not,
but it'd be boilerplatey without it. I'm also confident you cannot
change the evaluation order of one operator without changing all of
them.
Future work: Additionally, test more than just `i32 += i32` for the
primitive version. I don't actually know the full set of primitive
implementations, but I imagine there's enough to cause a combinatorial
explosion with the previous future work item. Somewhere on the order of
one to two hundred individual functions.
|
