Add lint for `unused_result_ok`
This PR adds a lint to capture the use of `expr.ok();` when the result is not _really_ used.
This could be interpreted as the result being checked (like it is with `unwrap()` or `expect`) but
it actually only ignores the result.
`let _ = expr;` expresses that intent better.
This was also mentionned in #8994 (although not being the main topic of that issue).
changelog: [`misleading_use_of_ok`]: Add new lint to capture `.ok();` when the result is not _really_ used.
* Construct lint passes by taking `Conf` by reference.
* Use `HashSet` configs in less places
* Move some `check_crate` code into the pass constructor when possible.
The `restriction` group contains many lints which are not about
necessarily “bad” things, but style choices — perhaps even style choices
which contradict conventional Rust style — or are otherwise very
situational. This results in silly wording like “Why is this bad?
It isn't, but ...”, which I’ve seen confuse a newcomer at least once.
To improve this situation, this commit replaces the “Why is this bad?”
section heading with “Why restrict this?”, for most, but not all,
restriction lints. I left alone the ones whose placement in the
restriction group is more incidental.
In order to make this make sense, I had to remove the “It isn't, but”
texts from the contents of the sections. Sometimes further changes
were needed, or there were obvious fixes to make, and I went ahead
and made those changes without attempting to split them into another
commit, even though many of them are not strictly necessary for the
“Why restrict this?” project.
Use the derive feature of `clap` to generate CLI of clippy-dev. Adding new
commands will be easier in the future and we get better compile time checking
through exhaustive matching.
`unescape_literal` becomes `unescape_unicode`, and `unescape_c_string`
becomes `unescape_mixed`. Because rfc3349 will mean that C string
literals will no longer be the only mixed utf8 literals.
