Fix suggesting turbofish with lifetime arguments
Now we suggest turbofish correctly given exprs like `foo<'_>`.
Also fix suggestion when we have `let x = foo<bar, baz>;` which was broken.
Swift has specific syntax that desugars to `Option<T>` similar to our
`?` operator, which means that people might try to use it in Rust. Parse
it and gracefully recover.
Remove `SymbolStr`
This was originally proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/74554#discussion_r466203544. As well as removing the icky `SymbolStr` type, it allows the removal of a lot of `&` and `*` occurrences.
Best reviewed one commit at a time.
r? `@oli-obk`
By changing `as_str()` to take `&self` instead of `self`, we can just
return `&str`. We're still lying about lifetimes, but it's a smaller lie
than before, where `SymbolStr` contained a (fake) `&'static str`!
Recover on invalid operators `<>` and `<=>`
Thanks to #89871 for showing me how to do this.
Next, I think it'd be nice to recover on `<=>` too, like #89871 intended, if this even works.
"Fix" an overflow in byte position math
r? `@estebank`
help! I fixed the ICE only to brick the diagnostic.
I mean, it was wrong previously (using an already expanded macro span), but it is really bad now XD
Newcomers may write `{1, 2, 3}` for making arrays, and the current error
message is not informative enough to quickly convince them what is
needed to fix the error.
This PR implements a diagnostic for this case, and its output looks like
this:
```text
error: this code is interpreted as a block expression, not an array
--> src/lib.rs:1:22
|
1 | const FOO: [u8; 3] = {
| ______________________^
2 | | 1, 2, 3
3 | | };
| |_^
|
= note: to define an array, one would use square brackets instead of curly braces
help: try using [] instead of {}
|
1 | const FOO: [u8; 3] = [
2 | 1, 2, 3
3 | ];
|
```
Fix#87672
Recover from `Foo(a: 1, b: 2)`
Detect likely `struct` literal using parentheses as delimiters and emit
targeted suggestion instead of type ascription parse error.
Fix#61326.
This commit focuses on emitting clean errors for the following syntax
error:
```
Some(42).map(|a|
dbg!(a);
a
);
```
Previous implementation tried to recover after parsing the closure body
(the `dbg` expression) by replacing the next `;` with a `,`, which made
the next expression belong to the next function argument. As such, the
following errors were emitted (among others):
- the semicolon token was not expected,
- a is not in scope,
- Option::map is supposed to take one argument, not two.
This commit allows us to gracefully handle this situation by adding
giving the parser the ability to remember when it has just parsed a
closure body inside a function call. When this happens, we can treat the
unexpected `;` specifically and try to parse as much statements as
possible in order to eat the whole block. When we can't parse statements
anymore, we generate a clean error indicating that the braces are
missing, and return an ExprKind::Err.
Improve diagnostics for unary plus operators (#88276)
This pull request improves the diagnostics emitted on parsing a unary plus operator. See #88276.
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `+`
--> src/main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^
| |
| unexpected `+`
| help: try removing the `+`
```
Old error output:
3 | let _: usize = $f;
| ----- ^ expected `usize`, found struct `Baz`
| |
| expected due to this
New error output:
3 | let _: usize = $f;
| ----- ^^ expected `usize`, found struct `Baz`
| |
| expected due to this
Old error output:
= note: this warning originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: wrap this expression in parentheses
|
4 | break '_l $f(;)
| ^ ^
New error output:
= note: this warning originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: wrap this expression in parentheses
|
4 | break '_l ($f);
| ^ ^
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`
