mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
a53f280bfc
rust/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/parens.stderr

55 lines
1.7 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/parens.rs:10:16
|
LL | () if (let 0 = 1) => {}
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
Address review comments - Add doc comment to new type - Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note - Rename variant with clearer name
2023-09-13 10:00:31 -05:00
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
note: `let`s wrapped in parentheses are not supported in a context with let chains
--> $DIR/parens.rs:10:16
|
LL | () if (let 0 = 1) => {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/parens.rs:12:18
|
LL | () if (((let 0 = 1))) => {}
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
|
Address review comments - Add doc comment to new type - Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note - Rename variant with clearer name
2023-09-13 10:00:31 -05:00
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
note: `let`s wrapped in parentheses are not supported in a context with let chains
--> $DIR/parens.rs:12:18
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
|
LL | () if (((let 0 = 1))) => {}
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
| ^^^^^^^^^
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
--> $DIR/parens.rs:20:16
|
LL | () if (let 0 = 1) => {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
Address review comments - Add doc comment to new type - Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note - Rename variant with clearer name
2023-09-13 10:00:31 -05:00
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
note: `let`s wrapped in parentheses are not supported in a context with let chains
--> $DIR/parens.rs:20:16
|
LL | () if (let 0 = 1) => {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/parens.rs:22:18
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
|
LL | () if (((let 0 = 1))) => {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
Address review comments - Add doc comment to new type - Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note - Rename variant with clearer name
2023-09-13 10:00:31 -05:00
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
note: `let`s wrapped in parentheses are not supported in a context with let chains
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
--> $DIR/parens.rs:22:18
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
|
LL | () if (((let 0 = 1))) => {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
Move let expression checking to parsing There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid location, sometimes causing ICEs. - Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a valid location. - Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let expressions.
2023-09-08 05:14:36 -05:00
error: aborting due to 4 previous errors
Add more tests for if_let_guard
2023-08-24 03:41:30 -05:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink