the problem is that now "type_is_known_to_be_sized" now returns
false when called on a type with ty_err inside - this prevents
spurious errors (we may want to move the check to check::cast
anyway - see #12894).
len needs to be prefixed by self for this to work. That is something which trips me up all the time. It's reassuring to see that happening to seasoned Rust programmers.
I'm working my way through TRPL beginning at "Syntax and Semantics" as was recommended in a previous version.
I'm expecting the chapter to incrementally build up my knowledge of the language section by section, assuming no prior Rust experience. So it was a bit of a speed-bump to encounter references and the vector type in a code example long before they had been defined and explained.
Another commit in this PR tries to make consistent what is a "chapter" of TRPL versus a "section." Just a nit-pick, but not thinking about that stuff keeps my focus on the important material.
My background: Python programmer since ~2000, with moderate exposure to C, C++, assembly, operating systems, and system architecture in university several years ago.
For your kind consideration, feel welcome to use or drop or rework any part of this.
Fixes#30674
The test seems to work fine and assertion passes. The test seems to also be generated from MIR (LLVM IR has footprint of MIR translator), thus I’m reenabling it.
Previously it was returning a value, mostly for the two reasons:
* Cloning Lvalue is very cheap most of the time (i.e. when Lvalue is not a Projection);
* There’s users who want &mut lvalue and there’s users who want &lvalue. Returning a value allows
to make either one easier when pattern matching (i.e. Some(ref dest) or Some(ref mut dest)).
However, I’m now convinced this is an invalid approach. Namely the users which want a mutable
reference may modify the Lvalue in-place, but the changes won’t be reflected in the final MIR,
since the Lvalue modified is merely a clone.
Instead, we have two accessors `destination` and `destination_mut` which return a reference to the
destination in desired mode.
macro future proofing rules.
(We may want to think about what this test was actually testing and
figure out a way to test it without running afoul of macro future
proofing. I spent some time trying to do this, e.g. by inserting
parenthesis in the macro input pattern, but I could not quickly get it
working, so I took this tack instead.)
After a call to `visit_def_id()` missing in `mir::visit::Visitor` but not `mir::visit::MutVisitor` has caused me a couple hours of error hunting, I decided I'd take the time to get rid of the code duplication between the two implementations.
cc @rust-lang/compiler
See RFC amendment 1384 and tracking issue 30450:
https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1384https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/30450
Moved old check_matcher code into check_matcher_old
combined the two checks to enable a warning cycle (where we will
continue to error if the two checks agree to reject, accept if the new
check says accept, and warn if the old check accepts but the new check
rejects).
`TypeFoldable`s can currently be visited inefficiently with an identity folder that is run only for its side effects. This creates a more efficient visitor for `TypeFoldable`s and uses it to implement `RegionEscape` and `HasProjectionTypes`, fixing cleanup issue #20298.
This is a pure refactoring.
It was recently realized that we accept defaulted type parameters everywhere, without feature gate, even though the only place that we really *intended* to accept them were on types. This PR adds a lint warning unless the "type-parameter-defaults" feature is enabled. This should eventually become a hard error.
This is a [breaking-change] in that new feature gates are required (or simply removing the defaults, which is probably a better choice as they have little effect at this time). Results of a [crater run][crater] suggest that approximately 5-15 crates are affected. I didn't do the measurement quite right so that run cannot distinguish "true" regressions from "non-root" regressions, but even the upper bound of 15 affected crates seems relatively minimal.
[crater]: https://gist.github.com/nikomatsakis/760c6a67698bd24253bf
cc @rust-lang/lang
r? @pnkfelix
