Iterate through TupleStructPat's until a MatchArm if
one exists. Store in a new is_pat_bind_and_path bool
and allow the `complete_scope` to find matches.
Added some tests to ensure it works in simple and nested cases.
The `ty` function in code_model returned the type with placeholders for type
parameters. That's nice for printing, but not good for completion, because
placeholders won't unify with anything else: So the type we got for `HashMap`
was `HashMap<K, V, T>`, which doesn't unify with `HashMap<?, ?, RandomState>`,
so the `new` method wasn't shown.
Now we instead return `HashMap<{unknown}, {unknown}, {unknown}>`, which does
unify with the impl type. Maybe we should just expose this properly as variables
though, i.e. we'd return something like `exists<type, type, type> HashMap<?0,
?1, ?2>` (in Chalk notation). It'll make the API more complicated, but harder to
misuse. (And it would handle cases like `type TypeAlias<T> = HashMap<T, T>` more
correctly.)
3553: Completions do not show for function with same name as mod r=matklad a=JoshMcguigan
fixes#3444
I've added a test case in `crates/ra_ide/src/completion/complete_path.rs` which verifies the described behavior in #3444. Digging in, I found that [the module scope iterator](ba62d8bd1c/crates/ra_ide/src/completion/complete_path.rs (L22)) only provides the module `z`, and does not provide the function `z` (although if I name the function something else then it does show up here).
I thought perhaps the name wasn't being properly resolved, but I added a test in `crates/ra_hir_def/src/nameres/tests.rs` which seems to suggest that it is? I've tried to figure out how to bridge the gap between these two tests (one passing, one failing) to see where the function `z` is being dropped, but to this point I haven't been able to track it down.
Any pointers on where I might look for this?
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
To test whether the receiver type matches for the impl, we unify the given self
type (in this case `HashSet<{unknown}>`) with the self type of the
impl (`HashSet<?0>`), but if the given self type contains Unknowns, they won't
be unified with the variables in those places. So we got a receiver type that
was different from the expected one, and concluded the impl doesn't match.
The fix is slightly hacky; if after the unification, our variables are still
there, we make them fall back to Unknown. This does make some sense though,
since we don't want to 'leak' the variables.
Fixes#3547.
3513: Completion in macros r=matklad a=flodiebold
I experimented a bit with completion in macros. It's kind of working, but there are a lot of rough edges.
- I'm trying to expand the macro call with the inserted fake token. This requires some hacky additions on the HIR level to be able to do "hypothetical" expansions. There should probably be a nicer API for this, if we want to do it this way. I'm not sure whether it's worth it, because we still can't do a lot if the original macro call didn't expand in nearly the same way. E.g. if we have something like `println!("", x<|>)` the expansions will look the same and everything is fine; but in that case we could maybe have achieved the same result in a simpler way. If we have something like `m!(<|>)` where `m!()` doesn't even expand or expands to something very different, we don't really know what to do anyway.
- Relatedly, there are a lot of cases where this doesn't work because either the original call or the hypothetical call doesn't expand. E.g. if we have `m!(x.<|>)` the original token tree doesn't parse as an expression; if we have `m!(match x { <|> })` the hypothetical token tree doesn't parse. It would be nice if we could have better error recovery in these cases.
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <flodiebold@gmail.com>
