Change `span_suggestion` (and variants) to take `impl ToString` rather
than `String` for the suggested code, as this simplifies the
requirements on the diagnostic derive.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
* Recover from invalid `'label: ` before block.
* Make suggestion to enclose statements in a block multipart.
* Point at `match`, `while`, `loop` and `unsafe` keywords when failing
to parse their expression.
* Do not suggest `{ ; }`.
* Do not suggest `|` when very unlikely to be what was wanted (in `let`
statements).
Add diagnostics for mistyped inclusive range
Inclusive ranges are correctly typed as `..=`. However, it's quite easy to think of it as being like `==`, and type `..==` instead. This PR adds helpful diagnostics for this case.
Resolves#86395 (there are some other cases there, but I think those should probably have separate issues).
r? `@estebank`
Stabilize "RangeFrom" patterns in 1.55
Implements a partial stabilization of #67264 and #37854.
Reference PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/900
# Stabilization Report
This stabilizes the `X..` pattern, shown as such, offering an exhaustive match for unsigned integers:
```rust
match x as u32 {
0 => println!("zero!"),
1.. => println!("positive number!"),
}
```
Currently if a Rust author wants to write such a match on an integer, they must use `1..={integer}::MAX` . By allowing a "RangeFrom" style pattern, this simplifies the match to not require the MAX path and thus not require specifically repeating the type inside the match, allowing for easier refactoring. This is particularly useful for instances like the above case, where different behavior on "0" vs. "1 or any positive number" is desired, and the actual MAX is unimportant.
Notably, this excepts slice patterns which include half-open ranges from stabilization, as the wisdom of those is still subject to some debate.
## Practical Applications
Instances of this specific usage have appeared in the compiler:
16143d1067/compiler/rustc_middle/src/ty/inhabitedness/mod.rs (L219)673d0db5e3/compiler/rustc_ty_utils/src/ty.rs (L524)
And I have noticed there are also a handful of "in the wild" users who have deployed it to similar effect, especially in the case of rejecting any value of a certain number or greater. It simply makes it much more ergonomic to write an irrefutable match, as done in Katholieke Universiteit Leuven's [SCALE and MAMBA project](05e5db00d5/WebAssembly/scale_std/src/fixed_point.rs (L685-L695)).
## Tests
There were already many tests in [src/test/ui/half-open-range/patterns](90a2e5e3fe/src/test/ui/half-open-range-patterns), as well as [generic pattern tests that test the `exclusive_range_pattern` feature](673d0db5e3/src/test/ui/pattern/usefulness/integer-ranges/reachability.rs), many dating back to the feature's introduction and remaining standing to this day. However, this stabilization comes with some additional tests to explore the... sometimes interesting behavior of interactions with other patterns. e.g. There is, at least, a mild diagnostic improvement in some edge cases, because before now, the pattern `0..=(5+1)` encounters the `half_open_range_patterns` feature gate and can thus emit the request to enable the feature flag, while also emitting the "inclusive range with no end" diagnostic. There is no intent to allow an `X..=` pattern that I am aware of, so removing the flag request is a strict improvement. The arrival of the `J | K` "or" pattern also enables some odd formations.
Some of the behavior tested for here is derived from experiments in this [Playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=58777b3c715c85165ac4a70d93efeefc) example, linked at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67264#issuecomment-812770692, which may be useful to reference to observe the current behavior more closely.
In addition tests constituting an explanation of the "slicing range patterns" syntax issue are included in this PR.
## Desiderata
The exclusive range patterns and half-open range patterns are fairly strongly requested by many authors, as they make some patterns much more natural to write, but there is disagreement regarding the "closed" exclusive range pattern or the "RangeTo" pattern, especially where it creates "off by one" gaps in the presence of a "catch-all" wildcard case. Also, there are obviously no range analyses in place that will force diagnostics for e.g. highly overlapping matches. I believe these should be warned on, ideally, and I think it would be reasonable to consider such a blocker to stabilizing this feature, but there is no technical issue with the feature as-is from the purely syntactic perspective as such overlapping or missed matches can already be generated today with such a catch-all case. And part of the "point" of the feature, at least from my view, is to make it easier to omit wildcard matches: a pattern with such an "open" match produces an irrefutable match and does not need the wild card case, making it easier to benefit from exhaustiveness checking.
## History
- Implemented:
- Partially via exclusive ranges: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/35712
- Fully with half-open ranges: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67258
- Unresolved Questions:
- The precedence concerns of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/48501 were considered as likely requiring adjustment but probably wanting a uniform consistent change across all pattern styles, given https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/67264#issuecomment-720711656, but it is still unknown what changes might be desired
- How we want to handle slice patterns in ranges seems to be an open question still, as witnessed in the discussion of this PR!
I checked but I couldn't actually find an RFC for this, and given "approved provisionally by lang team without an RFC", I believe this might require an RFC before it can land? Unsure of procedure here, on account of this being stabilizing a subset of a feature of syntax.
r? `@scottmcm`
StructField -> FieldDef ("field definition")
Field -> ExprField ("expression field", not "field expression")
FieldPat -> PatField ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Also rename visiting and other methods working on them.
Improve suggestion for tuple struct pattern matching errors.
Closes#80174
This change allows numbers to be parsed as field names when pattern matching on structs, which allows us to provide better error messages when tuple structs are matched using a struct pattern.
r? ``@estebank``
Along the way, we also implement a handful of diagnostics improvements
and fixes, particularly with respect to the special handling of `||` in
place of `|` and when there are leading verts in function params, which
don't allow top-level or-patterns anyway.
This is a pure refactoring split out from #80689.
It represents the most invasive part of that PR, requiring changes in
every caller of `parse_outer_attributes`
In order to eagerly expand `#[cfg]` attributes while preserving the
original `TokenStream`, we need to know the range of tokens that
corresponds to every attribute target. This is accomplished by making
`parse_outer_attributes` return an opaque `AttrWrapper` struct. An
`AttrWrapper` must be converted to a plain `AttrVec` by passing it to
`collect_tokens_trailing_token`. This makes it difficult to accidentally
construct an AST node with attributes without calling `collect_tokens_trailing_token`,
since AST nodes store an `AttrVec`, not an `AttrWrapper`.
As a result, we now call `collect_tokens_trailing_token` for attribute
targets which only support inert attributes, such as generic arguments
and struct fields. Currently, the constructed `LazyTokenStream` is
simply discarded. Future PRs will record the token range corresponding
to the attribute target, allowing those tokens to be removed from an
enclosing `collect_tokens_trailing_token` call if necessary.
Currently, when a user uses a struct pattern to pattern match on
a tuple struct, the errors we emit generally suggest adding fields
using their field names, which are numbers. However, numbers are
not valid identifiers, so the suggestions, which use the shorthand
notation, are not valid syntax. This commit changes those errors
to suggest using the actual tuple struct pattern syntax instead,
which is a more actionable suggestion.
