Export `SemanticsImpl` from `ra_ap_hir` crate, since it's already exposed via `Semantics.deref()`
The `SemanticsImpl` type is already de-facto exposed via `<Semantics as Deref>::Target`.
By not being part of the public crate interface it however doesn't get included in the documentation, resulting in a massive blind spot when it comes to `ra_ap_hir`'s type resolution APIs.
Add public function for resolving callable AST exprs to their HIR equivalents
(the PR is motivated by an outside use of the `ra_ap_hir` crate that would benefit from being able to walk a `hir::Function`'s AST, resolving callable exprs within to their HIR equivalents)
Derive `PartialEq`, `Eq` & `Hash` for `hir::Param`
Since `hir::SelfParam`, as well as all members of `hir::Param` already implement `PartialEq`, `Eq` & `Hash` it seems reasonable to also make `hir::Param` implement those.
(the change is motivated by an outside use of the `ra_ap_hir` crate that would benefit from being able to collect params in a `HashSet`)
feature: Add `destructure_struct_binding`
Adds an assist for destructuring a struct in a binding (#8673). I saw that #13997 has been abandoned for a while, so I thought I'd give it a go.
## Example
```rust
let foo = Foo { bar: 1, baz: 2 };
let bar2 = foo.bar;
let baz2 = foo.baz;
let foo2 = foo;
let fizz = Fizz(1, 2);
let buzz = fizz.0;
```
becomes
```rust
let Foo { bar, baz } = Foo { bar: 1, baz: 2 };
let bar2 = bar;
let baz2 = baz;
let foo2 = todo!();
let Fizz(_0, _1) = Fizz(1, 2);
let buzz = _0;
```
More examples in the tests.
## What is included?
- [x] Destructure record, tuple, and unit struct bindings
- [x] Edit field usages
- [x] Non-exhaustive structs in foreign crates and private fields get hidden behind `..`
- [x] Nested bindings
- [x] Carry over `mut` and `ref mut` in nested bindings to fields, i.e. `let Foo { ref mut bar } = ...` becomes `let Foo { bar: Bar { baz: ref mut baz } } = ...`
- [x] Attempt to resolve collisions with other names in the scope
- [x] If the binding is to a reference, field usages are dereferenced if required
- [x] Use shorthand notation if possible
## Known limitations
- `let foo = Foo { bar: 1 }; foo;` currently results in `let Foo { bar } = Foo { bar: 1 }; todo!();` instead of reassembling the struct. This requires user intervention.
- Unused fields are not currently omitted. I thought that this is more ergonomic, as there already is a quick fix action for adding `: _` to unused field patterns.
fix: Goto definition for `index_mut`
Mostly same with #16696.
0ac05c0527/crates/hir-ty/src/infer/mutability.rs (L103-L133)
Thankfully, we are doing similar method resolutions so we can use them like the mentioned PR.
As there are only three `LangItem`s having `Mut` in there names; `FnMut`, `DerefMut` and `IndexMut`, I think that this is the last one 😄
Separate into create and apply edit
Rename usages
Hacky name map
Add more tests
Handle non-exhaustive
Add some more TODOs
Private fields
Use todo
Nesting
Improve rest token generation
Cleanup
Doc -> regular comment
Support mut
Add `to_path_buf()` method for `RelPath`
There seems to be no ergonomic way to obtain a `RelPathBuf` from a corresponding `&RelPath` at the moment, making the latter sort of a dead end.
The `AbsPath` type provides the following:
```rust
impl AbsPath {
// ...
/// Equivalent of [`Path::to_path_buf`] for `AbsPath`.
pub fn to_path_buf(&self) -> AbsPathBuf {
AbsPathBuf::try_from(self.0.to_path_buf()).unwrap()
}
// ...
}
```
So I took the liberty of adding a corresponding equivalent for `RelPath:
```rust
impl RelPath {
// ...
/// Equivalent of [`Path::to_path_buf`] for `RelPath`.
pub fn to_path_buf(&self) -> RelPathBuf {
RelPathBuf::try_from(self.0.to_path_buf()).unwrap()
}
// ...
}
```
(the change is motivated by an outside use of the `ra_ap_paths` crate that would benefit from being able to use `RelPath` and `AbsPath` over `Path`)
fix: Wrong closure kind deduction for closures with predicates
Completes #16472, fixes#16421
The changed closure kind deduction is mostly simlar to `rustc_hir_typeck/src/closure.rs`.
Porting closure sig deduction from it seems possible too and I'm considering doing it with another PR
