| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
indexing: reword help
After looking at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/40850, I thought I'd try to improve wording around error E0608 a bit. Hopefully I've succeeded.
|
|
Co-authored-by: beef <ent3rm4n@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Signed-off-by: dxsullivan <193140725+dxsullivan@users.noreply.github.com>
|
|
Remove default note for "trait is not implemented" in favor of the
more colorful diff output from the previous commit. Removes
duplicated output.
|
|
When a trait is not implemented for a type, but there *is* an `impl`
for another type or different trait params, we format the output to
use highlighting in the same way that E0308 does for types.
The logic accounts for 3 cases:
- When both the type and trait in the expected predicate and the candidate are different
- When only the types are different
- When only the trait generic params are different
For each case, we use slightly different formatting and wording.
|
|
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
Expand the primary span of E0277 when the immediate unmet bound is not what the user wrote:
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `i32: Bar` is not satisfied
--> f100.rs:6:6
|
6 | <i32 as Foo>::foo();
| ^^^ the trait `Bar` is not implemented for `i32`, which is required by `i32: Foo`
|
help: this trait has no implementations, consider adding one
--> f100.rs:2:1
|
2 | trait Bar {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
note: required for `i32` to implement `Foo`
--> f100.rs:3:14
|
3 | impl<T: Bar> Foo for T {}
| --- ^^^ ^
| |
| unsatisfied trait bound introduced here
```
Fix #40120.
|
|
Co-authored-by: Adrian <adrian.iosdev@gmail.com>
|
|
|
|
Use more targetted span for index obligation failures by rewriting the
obligation cause span.
CC #66023
|
|
|
|
|
|
Indexing is similar to method calls in having an arbitrary
left-hand-side and then something on the right, which is the main part
of the expression. Method calls already have a span for that right part,
but indexing does not. This means that long method chains that use
indexing have really bad spans, especially when the indexing panics and
that span in coverted into a panic location.
This does the same thing as method calls for the AST and HIR, storing an
extra span which is then put into the `fn_span` field in THIR.
|
