Basically adds a From impl for tuple enum variants with one field. Added
to cover the fairly common case of implementing your own Error that can
be created from another one, although other use cases exist.
3806: lower bool literal value r=flodiebold a=JoshMcguigan
Following up on #3805, this PR adds the literal value to `ast::LiteralKind` so when we lower we can use the actual value from the source code rather than the default value for the type. Ultimately I plan to use this for exhaustiveness checking in #3706.
I didn't include this in the previous PR because I wasn't sure if it made sense to add this information to `ast::LiteralKind` or provide some other mechanism to get this from `ast::Literal`.
For now I've only implemented this for boolean literals, but I think it could be easily extended to other types. A possible exception to this are string literals, since we may not want to clone around an owned string to hold onto in `ast::LiteralKind`, and it'd be nice to avoid adding a generic lifetime as well. Perhaps we won't ever care about the actual value of a string literal?
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
3797: Don't show chaining hints for record literals and unit structs r=matklad a=lnicola
Fixes#3796
r? @Veetaha
Co-authored-by: Laurențiu Nicola <lnicola@dend.ro>
3805: lower literal patterns r=JoshMcguigan a=JoshMcguigan
While working on #3706 I discovered literal patterns weren't being lowered. This PR implements that lowering.
Questions for reviewers:
1. This re-uses the existing conversion from `ast::LiteralKind` to `Literal`, but `ast::LiteralKind` doesn't include information about the actual value of the literal, which causes `Literal` to be created with the default value for the type (rather than the actual value in the source code). Am I correct in thinking that we'd eventually want to change things in such a way that we could initialize the `Literal` with the actual literal value? Is there an existing issue for this, or else perhaps I should create one to discuss how it should be implemented? My main question would be whether `ast::LiteralKind` should be extended to hold the actual value, or if we should provide some other way to get that information from `ast::Literal`?
2. I couldn't find tests which directly cover this, but it does seem to work in #3706. Do we have unit tests for this lowering code?
3. I'm not sure why `lit.literal()` returns an `Option`. Is returning a `Pat::Missing` in the `None` case the right thing to do?
4. I was basically practicing type-system driven development to figure out the transformation from `ast::Pat::LiteralPat` to `Pat::Lit`. I don't have an immediate question here, but I just wanted to ensure this section is looked at closely during review.
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
3780: Simplify r=matklad a=Veetaha
I absolutely love tha fact that removing `.clone()` simplifies the code comparing to other languages where it's actually the contrary (ahem ~~`std::move()`~~)
3787: vscode: add syntax tree inspection hovers and highlights r=matklad a=Veetaha
I implemented the reverse mapping (when you hover in the rust editor), but it seems overcomplicated, so I removed it
Related #3682
Co-authored-by: veetaha <veetaha2@gmail.com>
Co-authored-by: Veetaha <veetaha2@gmail.com>
