rust/src/test/ui/did_you_mean/issue-42764.stderr

error[E0308]: mismatched types
  --> $DIR/issue-42764.rs:11:43
   |
LL |     this_function_expects_a_double_option(n);
   |                                           ^ expected enum `DoubleOption`, found `usize`
   |
   = note: expected enum `DoubleOption<_>`
              found type `usize`
help: try wrapping the expression in a variant of `DoubleOption`
   |
LL |     this_function_expects_a_double_option(DoubleOption::FirstSome(n));
   |                                           ++++++++++++++++++++++++ +
LL |     this_function_expects_a_double_option(DoubleOption::AlternativeSome(n));
   |                                           ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +

error[E0308]: mismatched types
  --> $DIR/issue-42764.rs:27:33
   |
LL |     let _c = Context { wrapper: Payload{} };
   |                                 ^^^^^^^^^ expected struct `Wrapper`, found struct `Payload`

error: aborting due to 2 previous errors

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0308`.
suggest one-argument enum variant to fix type mismatch when applicable Most notably, this will suggest `Some(x)` when the expected type was an Option<T> but we got an x: T. Resolves #42764. 2017-07-12 03:03:58 +00:00			`error[E0308]: mismatched types`
Remove licenses 2018-12-25 15:56:47 +00:00			`--> $DIR/issue-42764.rs:11:43`
suggest one-argument enum variant to fix type mismatch when applicable Most notably, this will suggest `Some(x)` when the expected type was an Option<T> but we got an x: T. Resolves #42764. 2017-07-12 03:03:58 +00:00			`\|`
Update UI tests 2018-02-23 00:42:32 +00:00			`LL \| this_function_expects_a_double_option(n);`
Surround types with backticks in type errors 2019-11-15 17:37:01 +00:00			\| ^ expected enum `DoubleOption`, found `usize`
suggest one-argument enum variant to fix type mismatch when applicable Most notably, this will suggest `Some(x)` when the expected type was an Option<T> but we got an x: T. Resolves #42764. 2017-07-12 03:03:58 +00:00			`\|`
Specific labels when referring to "expected" and "found" types 2019-11-13 22:16:56 +00:00			= note: expected enum `DoubleOption<_>`
suggest one-argument enum variant to fix type mismatch when applicable Most notably, this will suggest `Some(x)` when the expected type was an Option<T> but we got an x: T. Resolves #42764. 2017-07-12 03:03:58 +00:00			found type `usize`
Update tests. 2021-11-04 16:57:30 +00:00			help: try wrapping the expression in a variant of `DoubleOption`
suggest one-argument enum variant to fix type mismatch when applicable Most notably, this will suggest `Some(x)` when the expected type was an Option<T> but we got an x: T. Resolves #42764. 2017-07-12 03:03:58 +00:00			`\|`
Always sort suggestions before emitting them 2021-10-01 18:09:31 +00:00			`LL \| this_function_expects_a_double_option(DoubleOption::FirstSome(n));`
Update tests. 2021-11-04 16:57:30 +00:00			`\| ++++++++++++++++++++++++ +`
			`LL \| this_function_expects_a_double_option(DoubleOption::AlternativeSome(n));`
			`\| ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +`
suggest one-argument enum variant to fix type mismatch when applicable Most notably, this will suggest `Some(x)` when the expected type was an Option<T> but we got an x: T. Resolves #42764. 2017-07-12 03:03:58 +00:00
only issue "variant of the expected type" suggestion for enums Felix S. Klock II pointed out that this suggestion (introduced in pull-request #43178 / eac74104) was being issued for one-field-struct expected types (in which case it is misleading and outright wrong), even though it was only intended for one-field enum-variants (most notably, `Some`). Particularly tender-hearted code-historians may be inclined to show mercy towards the author of #43178 on the grounds that it's somewhat confusing that struct field definitions are given in a type called `ty::VariantDef`. Add a conditional to adhere to the original intent. (It would be possible to generalize to structs, but not obviously net desirable.) This adds a level of indentation, so the diff here is going to be easier to read in ignore-whitespace mode (`-w`). Resolves #55250. 2018-10-21 22:37:01 +00:00			`error[E0308]: mismatched types`
Remove licenses 2018-12-25 15:56:47 +00:00			`--> $DIR/issue-42764.rs:27:33`
only issue "variant of the expected type" suggestion for enums Felix S. Klock II pointed out that this suggestion (introduced in pull-request #43178 / eac74104) was being issued for one-field-struct expected types (in which case it is misleading and outright wrong), even though it was only intended for one-field enum-variants (most notably, `Some`). Particularly tender-hearted code-historians may be inclined to show mercy towards the author of #43178 on the grounds that it's somewhat confusing that struct field definitions are given in a type called `ty::VariantDef`. Add a conditional to adhere to the original intent. (It would be possible to generalize to structs, but not obviously net desirable.) This adds a level of indentation, so the diff here is going to be easier to read in ignore-whitespace mode (`-w`). Resolves #55250. 2018-10-21 22:37:01 +00:00			`\|`
			`LL \| let _c = Context { wrapper: Payload{} };`
			\| ^^^^^^^^^ expected struct `Wrapper`, found struct `Payload`

			`error: aborting due to 2 previous errors`
suggest one-argument enum variant to fix type mismatch when applicable Most notably, this will suggest `Some(x)` when the expected type was an Option<T> but we got an x: T. Resolves #42764. 2017-07-12 03:03:58 +00:00
update tests 2018-03-03 14:59:40 +00:00			For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0308`.