When encountering a name `a` that isn't resolved, but a label `'a` is
found in the current ribs, only suggest `'a` if this name is the value
expression of a `break` statement.
Solve FIXME.
resolve: Simplify collection of traits in scope
"Traits in scope" for a given location are collected by walking all scopes in type namespace, collecting traits in them and pruning traits that don't have an associated item with the given name and namespace.
Previously we tried to prune traits using some kind of hygienic resolution for associated items, but that was complex and likely incorrect, e.g. in #80762 correction to visibilites of trait items caused some traits to not be in scope anymore.
I previously had some comments and concerns about this in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65351.
In this PR we are doing some much simpler pruning based on `Symbol` and `Namespace` comparisons, it should be enough to throw away 99.9% of unnecessary traits.
It is not necessary for pruning to be precise because for trait aliases, for example, we don't do any pruning at all, and precise hygienic resolution for associated items needs to be done in typeck anyway.
The somewhat unexpected effect is that trait imports introduced by macros 2.0 now bring traits into scope due to the removed hygienic check on associated item names.
I'm not sure whether it is desirable or not, but I think it's acceptable for now.
The old check was certainly incorrect because macros 2.0 did bring trait aliases into scope.
If doing this is not desirable, then we should come up with some other way to avoid bringing traits from macros 2.0 into scope, that would accommodate for trait aliases as well.
---
The PR also contains a couple of pure refactorings
- Scope walk is done by using `visit_scopes` instead of a hand-rolled version.
- Code is restructured to accomodate for rustdoc that also wants to query traits in scope, but doesn't want to filter them by associated items at all.
r? ```@matthewjasper```
resolve: Scope visiting doesn't need an `Ident`
Resolution scope visitor (`fn visit_scopes`) currently takes an `Ident` parameter, but it doesn't need a full identifier, or even its span, it only needs the `SyntaxContext` part.
The `SyntaxContext` part is necessary because scope visitor has to jump to macro definition sites, so it has to be directed by macro expansion information somehow.
I think it's clearer to pass only the necessary part.
Yes, usually visiting happens as a part of an identifier resolution, but in cases like collecting traits in scope (#80765) or collecting typo suggestions that's not the case.
r? `@matthewjasper`
* Rename `ModuleData.normal_ancestor_id` to `nearest_parent_mod`
`normal_ancestor_id` is a very confusing name if you don't already
understand what it means. Adding docs helps, but using a clearer and
more obvious name is also important.
* Rename `Resolver::nearest_mod_parent` to `nearest_parent_mod`
* Add more docs
- Adds optional default values to const generic parameters in the AST
and HIR
- Parses these optional default values
- Adds a `const_generics_defaults` feature gate
Suggest calling associated `fn` inside `trait`s
When calling a function that doesn't exist inside of a trait's
associated `fn`, and another associated `fn` in that trait has that
name, suggest calling it with the appropriate fully-qualified path.
Expand the label to be more descriptive.
Prompted by the following user experience:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/cannot-find-function/50663
When calling a function that doesn't exist inside of a trait's
associated `fn`, and another associated `fn` in that trait has that
name, suggest calling it with the appropriate fully-qualified path.
Expand the label to be more descriptive.
Prompted by the following user experience:
https://users.rust-lang.org/t/cannot-find-function/50663
Give better diagnostic when using a private tuple struct constructor
Fixes#75907
Some notes:
1. This required some deep changes, including removing a Copy impl for PatKind. If some tests fail, I would still appreciate review on the overall approach
2. this only works with basic patterns (no wildcards for example), and fails if there is any problems getting the visibility of the fields (i am not sure what the failure that can happen in resolve_visibility_speculative, but we check the length of our fields in both cases against each other, so if anything goes wrong, we fall back to the worse error. This could be extended to more patterns
3. this does not yet deal with #75906, but I believe it will be similar
4. let me know if you want more tests
5. doesn't yet at the suggestion that `@yoshuawuyts` suggested at the end of their issue, but that could be added relatively easily (i believe)
