Forbid use of generics with foreign functions. Closes #10353. #12337
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
Would it be sensible to have the formatting change in a separate commit to the actual fix? |
|
I've found that adding |
|
In the future, you don't need commas after blocks in match foo {
a => b, // comma required
b => { c } // no comma necessary
c => { d }, // comma optional
} |
|
@alexcrichton Woah, the |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 25, 2022
internal: document overall approach to reload
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 7, 2024
Check for try blocks in `question_mark` more consistently Fixes rust-lang#12337 I split this PR up into two commits since this moves a method out of an `impl`, which makes for a pretty bad diff (the `&self` parameter is now unused, and there isn't a reason for that function to be part of the `impl` now). The first commit is the actual relevant change and the 2nd commit just moves stuff (github's "hide whitespace" makes the diff easier to look at) ------------ Now for the actual issue: `?` within `try {}` blocks desugars to a `break` to the block, rather than a `return`, so that changes behavior in those cases. The lint has multiple patterns to look for and in *some* of them it already does correctly check whether we're in a try block, but this isn't done for all of its patterns. We could add another `self.inside_try_block()` check to the function that looks for `let-else-return`, but I chose to actually just move those checks out and instead have them in `LintPass::check_{stmt,expr}`. This has the advantage that we can't (easily) accidentally forget to add that check in new patterns that might be added in the future. (There's also a bit of a subtle interaction between two lints, where `question_mark`'s LintPass calls into `manual_let_else`, so I added a check to make sure we don't avoid linting for something that doesn't have anything to do with `?`) changelog: [`question_mark`]: avoid linting on try blocks in more cases
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
and fix up some formatting.