Implement let-else type annotations natively
Tracking issue: #87335Fixes#89688, fixes#89807, edit: fixes #89960 as well
As explained in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89688#issuecomment-940405082, the previous desugaring moved the let-else scrutinee into a dummy variable, which meant if you wanted to refer to it again in the else block, it had moved.
This introduces a new hir type, ~~`hir::LetExpr`~~ `hir::Let`, which takes over all the fields of `hir::ExprKind::Let(...)` and adds an optional type annotation. The `hir::Let` is then treated like a `hir::Local` when type checking a function body, specifically:
* `GatherLocalsVisitor` overrides a new `Visitor::visit_let_expr` and does pretty much exactly what it does for `visit_local`, assigning a local type to the `hir::Let` ~~(they could be deduplicated but they are right next to each other, so at least we know they're the same)~~
* It reuses the code in `check_decl_local` to typecheck the `hir::Let`, simply returning 'bool' for the expression type after doing that.
* ~~`FnCtxt::check_expr_let` passes this local type in to `demand_scrutinee_type`, and then imitates check_decl_local's pattern checking~~
* ~~`demand_scrutinee_type` (the blindest change for me, please give this extra scrutiny) uses this local type instead of of creating a new one~~
* ~~Just realised the `check_expr_with_needs` was passing NoExpectation further down, need to pass the type there too. And apparently this Expectation API already exists.~~
Some other misc notes:
* ~~Is the clippy code supposed to be autoformatted? I tried not to give huge diffs but maybe some rustfmt changes simply haven't hit it yet.~~
* in `rustc_ast_lowering/src/block.rs`, I noticed some existing `self.alias_attrs()` calls in `LoweringContext::lower_stmts` seem to be copying attributes from the lowered locals/etc to the statements. Is that right? I'm new at this, I don't know.
fix clippy format using `cargo fmt -p clippy_{lints,utils}`
manually revert rustfmt line truncations
rename to hir::Let in clippy
Undo the shadowing of various `expr` variables after renaming `scrutinee`
reduce destructuring of hir::Let to avoid `expr` collisions
cargo fmt -p clippy_{lints,utils}
bless new clippy::author output
StructField -> FieldDef ("field definition")
Field -> ExprField ("expression field", not "field expression")
FieldPat -> PatField ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Also rename visiting and other methods working on them.
When the 'early' and 'late' visitors visit an attribute target, they
activate any lint attributes (e.g. `#[allow]`) that apply to it.
This can affect warnings emitted on sibiling attributes. For example,
the following code does not produce an `unused_attributes` for
`#[inline]`, since the sibiling `#[allow(unused_attributes)]` suppressed
the warning.
```rust
trait Foo {
#[allow(unused_attributes)] #[inline] fn first();
#[inline] #[allow(unused_attributes)] fn second();
}
```
However, we do not do this for statements - instead, the lint attributes
only become active when we visit the struct nested inside `StmtKind`
(e.g. `Item`).
Currently, this is difficult to observe due to another issue - the
`HasAttrs` impl for `StmtKind` ignores attributes for `StmtKind::Item`.
As a result, the `unused_doc_comments` lint will never see attributes on
item statements.
This commit makes two interrelated fixes to the handling of inert
(non-proc-macro) attributes on statements:
* The `HasAttr` impl for `StmtKind` now returns attributes for
`StmtKind::Item`, treating it just like every other `StmtKind`
variant. The only place relying on the old behavior was macro
which has been updated to explicitly ignore attributes on item
statements. This allows the `unused_doc_comments` lint to fire for
item statements.
* The `early` and `late` lint visitors now activate lint attributes when
invoking the callback for `Stmt`. This ensures that a lint
attribute (e.g. `#[allow(unused_doc_comments)]`) can be applied to
sibiling attributes on an item statement.
For now, the `unused_doc_comments` lint is explicitly disabled on item
statements, which preserves the current behavior. The exact locatiosn
where this lint should fire are being discussed in PR #78306
