Diagnostics for struct path resolution errors in resolve and typeck are unified.
Self type is treated as a type alias in few places (not reachable yet).
Unsafe cell is seen in constants even through type aliases.
All checks for struct paths in typeck work on type level.
Refactor constant evaluation to use a single error reporting function
that reports a type-error-like message.
Also, unify all error codes with the "constant evaluation error" message
to just E0080, and similarly for a few other duplicate codes. The old
situation was a total mess, and now that we have *something* we can
further iterate on the UX.
The extra filename and line was mainly there to keep the indentation
relative to the main snippet; now that this doesn't include
filename/line-number as a prefix, it is distracted.
There's a lot of stuff wrong with the representation of these types:
TyFnDef doesn't actually uniquely identify a function, TyFnPtr is used to
represent method calls, TyFnDef in the sub-expression of a cast isn't
correctly reified, and probably some other stuff I haven't discovered yet.
Splitting them seems like the right first step, though.
This PR implements [RFC 1192](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1192-inclusive-ranges.md), which is triple-dot syntax for inclusive range expressions. The new stuff is behind two feature gates (one for the syntax and one for the std::ops types). This replaces the deprecated functionality in std::iter. Along the way I simplified the desugaring for all ranges.
This is my first contribution to rust which changes more than one character outside of a test or comment, so please review carefully! Some of the individual commit messages have more of my notes. Also thanks for putting up with my dumb questions in #rust-internals.
- For implementing `std::ops::RangeInclusive`, I took @Stebalien's suggestion from https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1192#issuecomment-137864421. It seemed to me to make the implementation easier and increase type safety. If that stands, the RFC should be amended to avoid confusion.
- I also kind of like @glaebhoerl's [idea](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1254#issuecomment-147815299), which is unified inclusive/exclusive range syntax something like `x>..=y`. We can experiment with this while everything is behind a feature gate.
- There are a couple of FIXMEs left (see the last commit). I didn't know what to do about `RangeArgument` and I haven't added `Index` impls yet. Those should be discussed/finished before merging.
cc @Gankro since you [complained](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/3xkfro/what_happened_to_inclusive_ranges/cy5j0yq)
cc #27777#30877rust-lang/rust#1192rust-lang/rfcs#1254
relevant to #28237 (tracking issue)
