73bc12199e
Add allow-by-default lint for unit bindings ### Example ```rust #![warn(unit_bindings)] macro_rules! owo { () => { let whats_this = (); } } fn main() { // No warning if user explicitly wrote `()` on either side. let expr = (); let () = expr; let _ = (); let _ = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type let pat = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type let _pat = expr; //~ WARN binding has unit type // No warning for let bindings with unit type in macro expansions. owo!(); // No warning if user explicitly annotates the unit type on the binding. let pat: () = expr; } ``` outputs ``` warning: binding has unit type `()` --> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:17:5 | LL | let _ = expr; | ^^^^-^^^^^^^^ | | | this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()` | note: the lint level is defined here --> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:3:9 | LL | #![warn(unit_bindings)] | ^^^^^^^^^^^^^ warning: binding has unit type `()` --> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:18:5 | LL | let pat = expr; | ^^^^---^^^^^^^^ | | | this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()` warning: binding has unit type `()` --> $DIR/unit-bindings.rs:19:5 | LL | let _pat = expr; | ^^^^----^^^^^^^^ | | | this pattern is inferred to be the unit type `()` warning: 3 warnings emitted ``` This lint is not triggered if any of the following conditions are met: - The user explicitly annotates the binding with the `()` type. - The binding is from a macro expansion. - The user explicitly wrote `let () = init;` - The user explicitly wrote `let pat = ();`. This is allowed for local lifetimes. ### Known Issue It is known that this lint can trigger on some proc-macro generated code whose span returns false for `Span::from_expansion` because e.g. the proc-macro simply forwards user code spans, and otherwise don't have distinguishing syntax context compared to non-macro-generated code. For those kind of proc-macros, I believe the correct way to fix them is to instead emit identifers with span like `Span::mixed_site().located_at(user_span)`. Closes #71432.