mikros/rust
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity
a733082be9
rust/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.stderr

Ignoring revisions in .git-blame-ignore-revs. Click here to bypass and see the normal blame view.

67 lines
2.4 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Normal View History

Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
Revert let_chains stabilization This reverts commit 326646074940222d602f3683d0559088690830f4. This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
2022-08-20 13:40:08 -05:00
--> $DIR/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs:8:19
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
|
LL | let _ = &&let Some(x) = Some(42);
| ^^^
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
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
Revert let_chains stabilization This reverts commit 326646074940222d602f3683d0559088690830f4. This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
2022-08-20 13:40:08 -05:00
--> $DIR/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs:13:47
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
|
LL | if let Some(elem) = _opt && [1, 2, 3][let _ = &&let Some(x) = Some(42)] = 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
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
Revert let_chains stabilization This reverts commit 326646074940222d602f3683d0559088690830f4. This is the revert against master, the beta revert was already done in #100538.
2022-08-20 13:40:08 -05:00
--> $DIR/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs:13:57
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
|
LL | if let Some(elem) = _opt && [1, 2, 3][let _ = &&let Some(x) = Some(42)] = 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
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
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/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs:13:12
|
LL | if let Some(elem) = _opt && [1, 2, 3][let _ = &&let Some(x) = Some(42)] = 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
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/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs:24:23
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
|
LL | [1, 2, 3][let _ = ()];
| ^^^
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
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
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/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs:33:47
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
|
LL | if let Some(elem) = _opt && [1, 2, 3][let _ = ()] = 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
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
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/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs:33:12
|
LL | if let Some(elem) = _opt && [1, 2, 3][let _ = ()] = 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
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/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs:42:21
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
|
LL | let x = let y = 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
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -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: aborting due to 8 previous errors
Fix last let_chains blocker
2022-07-08 05:25:50 -05:00
Reference in New Issue Copy Permalink