This seems like a better factoring logically; ideally, clients shouldn't touch
`set_` methods of the database directly. Additionally, I think this
should remove the unfortunate duplication in fixture code.
6055: Add ok postfix completion r=matklad a=mullr
Wrapping values in `Ok(...)` is so pervasive that it seems reasonable for it to
have its own postfix completion.
Co-authored-by: Russell Mull <russell.mull@gmail.com>
5846: Add references to fn args during completion r=matklad a=adamrk
When completing a function call, if there is an argument taken as a ref or mut ref which matches the name and type of a variable in scope, we will insert a `&` or `&mut` when filling in the function arguments. This addresses https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/5449.
E.g.
```rust
fn foo(x: &i32) {}
fn main() {
let x = 5;
foo # completing foo here generates `foo(&x)` now instead of `foo(x)`
}
```
Co-authored-by: adamrk <ark.email@gmail.com>
5976: Complete trait impl immediately after type/const/fn r=jonas-schievink a=oxalica
Currently, we can complete type/const/fn but only if we typed an identifier.
That is, `impl .. { fn f<|> }` has completions with all trait fn including `f`, but `impl .. { fn <|> }` doesn't provide any suggestion (even if explicit trigger it).
This PR tweak the logic of completion match to make it possible.
However, we still need to explicit trigger suggestions (`Control + Space` by default) in vscode to show. Not sure if we can make it automatically triggered after typing the space after `fn`.
Another question is that I cannot figure out why `BLOCK_EXPR` need to be checked. A block expr directly inside a impl block should be invalid, and nested items will failed to locate impl block in specific offset and skip the suggestion. Now I simply removed it and no tests are broken.
4f91478e50/crates/ide/src/completion/complete_trait_impl.rs (L109)
Co-authored-by: oxalica <oxalicc@pm.me>
5985: Make MergeBehaviour configurable r=jonas-schievink a=Veykril
This should make the newly implemented `MergeBehaviour` for import insertion configurable as roughly outlined in https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/5935#issuecomment-685834257. For the config name and the like I just picked what came to mind so that might be up for bikeshedding.
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
5971: Implement async blocks r=flodiebold a=oxalica
Fix#4018
@flodiebold already gave a generic guide in the issue. Here's some concern about implementation detail:
- Chalk doesn't support generator type yet.
- Adding generator type as a brand new type (ctor) can be complex and need to *re-introduced* builtin impls. (Like how we implement closures before native closure support of chalk, which is already removed in #5401 )
- The output type of async block should be known after type inference of the whole body.
- We cannot directly get the type from source like return-positon-impl-trait. But we still need to provide trait bounds when chalk asking for `opaque_ty_data`.
- During the inference, the output type of async block can be temporary unknown and participate the later inference.
`let a = async { None }; let _: i32 = a.await.unwrap();`
So in this PR, the type of async blocks is inferred as an opaque type parameterized by the `Future::Output` type it should be, like what we do with closure type.
And it really works now.
Well, I still have some questions:
- The bounds `AsyncBlockImplType<T>: Future<Output = T>` is currently generated in `opaque_ty_data`. I'm not sure if we should put this code here.
- Type of async block is now rendered as `impl Future<Output = OutputType>`. Do we need to special display to hint that it's a async block? Note that closure type has its special format, instead of `impl Fn(..) -> ..` or function type.
Co-authored-by: oxalica <oxalicc@pm.me>
