mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
21bcd2ee9c
rust/tests/ui/parser/bare-struct-body.stderr

44 lines
961 B
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Detect blocks that could be struct expr bodies This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case: ```rust fn foo() -> Foo { bar: Vec::new() } ``` ``` error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope --> src/file.rs:5:5 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait --> src/file.rs:5:15 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0 --> src/file.rs:5:10 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument ``` If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it would trigger the new, more targetted, error: ``` error: struct literal body without path --> file.rs:4:17 | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { | _________________^ 5 | | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | | } | |_^ | help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path { 5 | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | } } | ``` Partially address last part of #34255.
2020-08-12 17:39:15 -05:00
error: struct literal body without path
--> $DIR/bare-struct-body.rs:5:17
|
LL | fn foo() -> Foo {
| _________________^
LL | | val: (),
LL | | }
| |_^
|
help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block
|
Modify structured suggestion output * On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format * When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline * Color highlight modified span
2021-06-21 21:07:19 -05:00
LL ~ fn foo() -> Foo { SomeStruct {
Detect blocks that could be struct expr bodies This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case: ```rust fn foo() -> Foo { bar: Vec::new() } ``` ``` error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope --> src/file.rs:5:5 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait --> src/file.rs:5:15 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0 --> src/file.rs:5:10 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument ``` If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it would trigger the new, more targetted, error: ``` error: struct literal body without path --> file.rs:4:17 | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { | _________________^ 5 | | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | | } | |_^ | help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path { 5 | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | } } | ``` Partially address last part of #34255.
2020-08-12 17:39:15 -05:00
LL | val: (),
Modify structured suggestion output * On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format * When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline * Color highlight modified span
2021-06-21 21:07:19 -05:00
LL ~ } }
Detect blocks that could be struct expr bodies This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case: ```rust fn foo() -> Foo { bar: Vec::new() } ``` ``` error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope --> src/file.rs:5:5 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait --> src/file.rs:5:15 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0 --> src/file.rs:5:10 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument ``` If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it would trigger the new, more targetted, error: ``` error: struct literal body without path --> file.rs:4:17 | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { | _________________^ 5 | | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | | } | |_^ | help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path { 5 | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | } } | ``` Partially address last part of #34255.
2020-08-12 17:39:15 -05:00
|
error: struct literal body without path
--> $DIR/bare-struct-body.rs:12:13
|
LL | let x = {
| _____________^
LL | | val: (),
LL | | };
| |_____^
|
help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block
|
Modify structured suggestion output * On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format * When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline * Color highlight modified span
2021-06-21 21:07:19 -05:00
LL ~ let x = { SomeStruct {
Detect blocks that could be struct expr bodies This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case: ```rust fn foo() -> Foo { bar: Vec::new() } ``` ``` error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope --> src/file.rs:5:5 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait --> src/file.rs:5:15 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0 --> src/file.rs:5:10 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument ``` If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it would trigger the new, more targetted, error: ``` error: struct literal body without path --> file.rs:4:17 | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { | _________________^ 5 | | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | | } | |_^ | help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path { 5 | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | } } | ``` Partially address last part of #34255.
2020-08-12 17:39:15 -05:00
LL | val: (),
Modify structured suggestion output * On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format * When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline * Color highlight modified span
2021-06-21 21:07:19 -05:00
LL ~ } };
Detect blocks that could be struct expr bodies This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case: ```rust fn foo() -> Foo { bar: Vec::new() } ``` ``` error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope --> src/file.rs:5:5 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait --> src/file.rs:5:15 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0 --> src/file.rs:5:10 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument ``` If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it would trigger the new, more targetted, error: ``` error: struct literal body without path --> file.rs:4:17 | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { | _________________^ 5 | | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | | } | |_^ | help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path { 5 | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | } } | ``` Partially address last part of #34255.
2020-08-12 17:39:15 -05:00
|
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> $DIR/bare-struct-body.rs:11:14
|
LL | x.val == 42;
Point at LHS on binop type err if relevant
2022-12-02 17:56:37 -06:00
| ----- ^^ expected `()`, found integer
| |
| expected because this is `()`
Detect blocks that could be struct expr bodies This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case: ```rust fn foo() -> Foo { bar: Vec::new() } ``` ``` error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope --> src/file.rs:5:5 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait --> src/file.rs:5:15 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0 --> src/file.rs:5:10 | 5 | bar: Vec::new() | ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument ``` If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it would trigger the new, more targetted, error: ``` error: struct literal body without path --> file.rs:4:17 | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { | _________________^ 5 | | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | | } | |_^ | help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block | 4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path { 5 | bar: Vec::new(), 6 | } } | ``` Partially address last part of #34255.
2020-08-12 17:39:15 -05:00
error: aborting due to 3 previous errors
For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0308`.
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink