Move binder for dyn to each list item
This essentially changes `ty::Binder<&'tcx List<ExistentialTraitRef>>` to `&'tcx List<ty::Binder<ExistentialTraitRef>>`.
This is a first step in moving the `dyn Trait` representation closer to Chalk, which we've talked about in `@rust-lang/wg-traits.`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
Implement if-let match guards
Implements rust-lang/rfcs#2294 (tracking issue: #51114).
I probably should do a few more things before this can be merged:
- [x] Add tests (added basic tests, more advanced tests could be done in the future?)
- [x] Add lint for exhaustive if-let guard (comparable to normal if-let statements)
- [x] Fix clippy
However since this is a nightly feature maybe it's fine to land this and do those steps in follow-up PRs.
Thanks a lot `@matthewjasper` ❤️ for helping me with lowering to MIR! Would you be interested in reviewing this?
r? `@ghost` for now
Fixing a false positive for the `match_single_binding` lint #5552
This is a fix for a false positive in the `match_single_binding` lint when using `#[cfg()]` on a branch. It is sadly a bit hacky but maybe the best solution as rust removes the other branch from the AST before we can even validate it. This fix looks at the code snippet itself and returns if it includes another thick arrow `=>` besides the one matching arm we found. This can again cause false negatives if someone has the following code:
```rust
match x {
// => <-- Causes a false negative
_ => 1,
}
```
I thought about making the code more complex and maybe validating against other things like the `#[cfg()]` macro but I believe that this is the best solution. This has basically switched the issue from a false positive to a false negative in a very specific case.
I'm happy to make some changes if you have any suggestions 🙃.
---
Fixes#5552
changelog: Fixed a false positive in the `match_single_binding` lint with `#[cfg()]` macro
Add MSRV to more lints specified in #6097
add MSRV to more lints specified in #6097
add instructions for adding msrv in other lints
update tests
- [x] `redundant_field_names` requires Rust 1.17 due to suggest feature stablized in that version.
- [x] `redundant_static_lifetimes` requires Rust 1.17 due to suggest feature stablized in that version.
- [x] `filter_map_next` requires Rust 1.30 due to suggest `Iterator::find_map`.
- [x] `checked_conversions` requires Rust 1.34 due to suggest `TryFrom`.
- [x] `match_like_matches_macro` requires Rust 1.42 due to suggest `matches!`. Addressed in #6201
- [x] `manual_strip` requires Rust 1.45 due to suggest `str::{strip_prefix, strip_suffix}`. Addressed in #6201
- [x] `option_as_ref_deref` requires Rust 1.40 due to suggest `Option::{as_deref, as_deref_mut}`. Addressed in #6201
- [x] `manual_non_exhaustive` requires Rust 1.40 due to suggest `#[non_exhaustive]`. Addressed in #6201
- [x] `manual_range_contains` requires Rust 1.35 due to suggest `Range*::contains`.
- [x] `use_self` requires Rust 1.37 due to suggest `Self::Variant on enum`.
- [x] `mem_replace_with_default` requires Rust 1.40 due to suggest `mem::take`.
- [x] `map_unwrap_or` requires Rust 1.41 due to suggest `Result::{map_or, map_or_else}`.
- [x] `missing_const_for_fn` requires Rust 1.46 due to `match/if/loop in const fn` needs that version.
changelog: Add MSRV config to more lints. ^This is now the complete list, AFAWK
Add lint print_stderr
Resolves#6348
Almost identical to print_stdout, this lint applies to the `eprintln!` and `eprint!` macros rather than `println!` and `print!`.
changelog: Add new lint [`print_stderr`]. [`println_empty_string`] and [`print_with_newline`] now apply to `eprint!()` and `eprintln!()` respectively.
Added a lint-fraction-readability flag to the configuration
This adds an option to disable the `unreadable_literal` lint for floats with a longer fraction. This allows users to write `0.100200300` without getting a warning. Fixes#4176
I have some open questions about this PR:
1. I've named the option `lint-fraction-readability` is this a good name or should I rename it to something else?
2. What should the default configuration value be?
* The current default value is `true` as this was also the previous default.
3. Do I have to document this new option somewhere else or will it be extracted from the code comment?
4. The current fix option will also rewrite the fraction if the integer part violates the `unreadable_literal` lint it would otherwise also trigger the `inconsistent_digit_grouping` lint. Is this also okay?
* `1.100200300` will be unaffected by the fix function
* `100200300.100200300` will be effected and fixed to `100_200_300.100_200_300`
---
The project needed some getting used to but I'm happy with the result. A big thank you to `@flip1995` for giving me some pointers for this implementation and to everyone for the great introduction documentation!
---
changelog: Added the `unreadable-literal-lint-fractions` configuration to disable the `unreadable_literal` lint for fractions
Moved map_err_ignore to restriction and updated help message
This MR moves map_err_ignore lint from `pedantic` to the `restriction` category of lints and updates the help message to give the user an option to ignore the lint by naming the closure variable e.g. `.map_err(|_ignored| ...`
---
changelog: move map_err_ignore to restriction category
