Introduce support for `async gen` blocks
I'm delighted to demonstrate that `async gen` block are not very difficult to support. They're simply coroutines that yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and return `()`.
**This PR is WIP and in draft mode for now** -- I'm mostly putting it up to show folks that it's possible. This PR needs a lang-team experiment associated with it or possible an RFC, since I don't think it falls under the jurisdiction of the `gen` RFC that was recently authored by oli (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3513, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078).
### Technical note on the pre-generator-transform yield type:
The reason that the underlying coroutines yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and not `Poll<T>` (which would make more sense, IMO, for the pre-transformed coroutine), is because the `TransformVisitor` that is used to turn coroutines into built-in state machine functions would have to destructure and reconstruct the latter into the former, which requires at least inserting a new basic block (for a `switchInt` terminator, to match on the `Poll` discriminant).
This does mean that the desugaring (at the `rustc_ast_lowering` level) of `async gen` blocks is a bit more involved. However, since we already need to intercept both `.await` and `yield` operators, I don't consider it much of a technical burden.
r? `@ghost`
never_patterns: Parse match arms with no body
Never patterns are meant to signal unreachable cases, and thus don't take bodies:
```rust
let ptr: *const Option<!> = ...;
match *ptr {
None => { foo(); }
Some(!),
}
```
This PR makes rustc accept the above, and enforces that an arm has a body xor is a never pattern. This affects parsing of match arms even with the feature off, so this is delicate. (Plus this is my first non-trivial change to the parser).
~~The last commit is optional; it introduces a bit of churn to allow the new suggestions to be machine-applicable. There may be a better solution? I'm not sure.~~ EDIT: I removed that commit
r? `@compiler-errors`
Because a macro invocation can expand to a never pattern, we can't rule
out a `arm!(),` arm at parse time. Instead we detect that case at
expansion time, if the macro tries to output a pattern followed by `=>`.
Suggest `let` or `==` on typo'd let-chain
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
When encountering a bare assignment in a let-chain, suggest turning the
assignment into a `let` expression or an equality check.
```
error: expected expression, found `let` statement
--> $DIR/bad-if-let-suggestion.rs:5:8
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i = 2 {}
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions
help: you might have meant to continue the let-chain
|
LL | if let x = 1 && let i = 2 {}
| +++
help: you might have meant to compare for equality
|
LL | if let x = 1 && i == 2 {}
| +
```
Give a better diagnostic for missing parens in Fn* bounds
Fixes#108109
It would be nice to try and recover here, but I'm not sure it's worth the effort, especially as the bounds on the recovered function would be incorrect.
Detect missing `=>` after match guard during parsing
```
error: expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`, found `.`
--> $DIR/missing-fat-arrow.rs:25:14
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b {
| - while parsing this struct
LL | a.value = 1;
| -^ expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`
| |
| while parsing this struct field
|
help: try naming a field
|
LL | a: a.value = 1;
| ++
help: you might have meant to start a match arm after the match guard
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b => {
| ++
```
Fix#78585.
```
error: expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`, found `.`
--> $DIR/missing-fat-arrow.rs:25:14
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b {
| - while parsing this struct
LL | a.value = 1;
| -^ expected one of `,`, `:`, or `}`
| |
| while parsing this struct field
|
help: try naming a field
|
LL | a: a.value = 1;
| ++
help: you might have meant to start a match arm after the match guard
|
LL | Some(a) if a.value == b => {
| ++
```
Fix#78585.
- Add doc comment to new type
- Restore "only supported directly in conditions of `if` and `while` expressions" note
- Rename variant with clearer name
There was an incomplete version of the check in parsing and a second
version in AST validation. This meant that some, but not all, invalid
uses were allowed inside macros/disabled cfgs. It also means that later
passes have a hard time knowing when the let expression is in a valid
location, sometimes causing ICEs.
- Add a field to ExprKind::Let in AST/HIR to mark whether it's in a
valid location.
- Suppress later errors and MIR construction for invalid let
expressions.
Gracefully handle ternary operator
Fixes#112578
~~May not be the best way to do this as it doesn't check for a single `:`, so it could perhaps appear even when the actual issue is just a missing semicolon. May not be the biggest deal, though?~~
Nevermind, got it working properly now ^^
My type ascription
Oh rip it out
Ah
If you think we live too much then
You can sacrifice diagnostics
Don't mix your garbage
Into my syntax
So many weird hacks keep diagnostics alive
Yet I don't even step outside
So many bad diagnostics keep tyasc alive
Yet tyasc doesn't even bother to survive!
