Hi all.
This is my first contribution to Rust and fixes an issue causing an invalid error message to be presented to the user when using unit struct as length of a repeat expression, issue #27008. The solution is based on suggestions by @oli-obk, but as I'm a complete newbie to this, I have no clue if I got them right :)
The biggest concern I have is that if the `NodeId` I'm returning is the correct one or not (it's not meaningful in this case but I think it would be nice to get it right).
Refactors the "desugaring" of closures to expose the types of the upvars. This is necessary to be faithful with how actual structs work. The reasoning of the particular desugaring that I chose is explained in a fairly detailed comment.
As a side-effect, recursive closure types are prohibited unless a trait object intermediary is used. This fixes#25954 and also eliminates concerns about unrepresentable closure types that have infinite size, I believe. I don't believe this can cause regressions because of #25954.
(As for motivation, besides #25954 etc, this work is also intended as refactoring in support of incremental compilation, since closures are one of the thornier cases encountered when attempting to split node-ids into item-ids and within-item-ids. The goal is to eliminate the "internal def-id" distinction in astdecoding. However, I have to do more work on trans to really make progress there.)
r? @nrc
Macro desugaring of `in PLACE { BLOCK }` into "simpler" expressions following the in-development "Placer" protocol.
Includes Placer API that one can override to integrate support for `in` into one's own type. (See [RFC 809].)
[RFC 809]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0809-box-and-in-for-stdlib.md
Part of #22181
Replaced PR #26180.
Turns on the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax, while leaving in support for the old `box (PLACE) EXPR` syntax (since we need to support that at least until we have a snapshot with support for `in PLACE { BLOCK }`.
(Note that we are not 100% committed to the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax. In particular I still want to play around with some other alternatives. Still, I want to get the fundamental framework for the protocol landed so we can play with implementing it for non `Box` types.)
----
Also, this PR leaves out support for desugaring-based `box EXPR`. We will hopefully land that in the future, but for the short term there are type-inference issues injected by that change that we want to resolve separately.
Makes the lint a bit more accurate, and improves the quality of the diagnostic
messages by explicitly returning an error message.
The new lint is also a little more aggressive: specifically, it now
rejects tuples, and it recurses into function pointers.
The two tests are separate since the current implementation performs
the feature gate checks at distinct phases in the compilation, with an
`abort_if_errors` calls separating them.
Even after expansion, the generated expressions still track depth of
such pushes (i.e. how often you have "pushed" without a corresponding
"pop"), and we add a rule that in a context with a positive
`push_unsafe!` depth, it is effectively an `unsafe` block context.
(This way, we can inject code that uses `unsafe` features, but still
contains within it a sub-expression that should inherit the outer
safety checking setting, outside of the injected code.)
This is a total hack; it not only needs a feature-gate, but probably
should be feature-gated forever (if possible).
ignore-pretty in test/run-pass/pushpop-unsafe-okay.rs
The "hint" mechanism is essentially used as a workaround to compute
types for expressions which have not yet been type-checked. This
commit clarifies that usage, and limits the effects to the places
where it is currently necessary.
Fixes#26210.
r? @eddyb
Adding new variants is annoying as one needs to modify all these places that **don't** handle the new variant.
I chose not to use `Display` as I don't think it is appropriate.
This also changes how variant values are printed in errors, they are no
longer printed in their parent scope. As far as I can tell, this is
leftover from pre-namespacing of enums.
Closes#17546.
The "hint" mechanism is essentially used as a workaround to compute
types for expressions which have not yet been type-checked. This
commit clarifies that usage, and limits the effects to the places
where it is currently necessary.
Fixes#26210.
Transition to the new object lifetime defaults, replacing the old defaults completely.
r? @pnkfelix
This is a [breaking-change] as specified by [RFC 1156][1156] (though all cases that would break should have been receiving warnings starting in Rust 1.2). Types like `&'a Box<Trait>` (or `&'a Rc<Trait>`, etc) will change from being interpreted as `&'a Box<Trait+'a>` to `&'a Box<Trait+'static>`. To restore the old behavior, write the `+'a` explicitly. For example, the function:
```rust
trait Trait { }
fn foo(x: &Box<Trait>) { ... }
```
would be rewritten as:
```rust
trait Trait { }
fn foo(x: &'a Box<Trait+'a>) { ... }
```
if one wanted to preserve the current typing.
[1156]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1156-adjust-default-object-bounds.md
This also changes how variant values are printed in errors, they are no
longer printed in their parent scope. As far as I can tell, this is
leftover from pre-namespacing of enums.
Closes#17546.
Adds two error codes, one for duplicate associated constants and one for types. I'm not certain these should each have their own code, but E0201 is already solely for duplicate associated functions so at least it kinda matches. This will lead to somewhat redundant error explanations, but that's nothing new!
Fixes#23969.
