use if let instead of single match arm expressions
use if let instead of single match arm expressions to compact code and reduce nesting (clippy::single_match)
* Change error message for type param in a const expression when using
min_const_generics
* Change ParamInNonTrivialAnonConst to contain an extra bool used for
distinguishing whether the passed-in symbol is a type or a value.
Give better diagnostic when using a private tuple struct constructor
Fixes#75907
Some notes:
1. This required some deep changes, including removing a Copy impl for PatKind. If some tests fail, I would still appreciate review on the overall approach
2. this only works with basic patterns (no wildcards for example), and fails if there is any problems getting the visibility of the fields (i am not sure what the failure that can happen in resolve_visibility_speculative, but we check the length of our fields in both cases against each other, so if anything goes wrong, we fall back to the worse error. This could be extended to more patterns
3. this does not yet deal with #75906, but I believe it will be similar
4. let me know if you want more tests
5. doesn't yet at the suggestion that `@yoshuawuyts` suggested at the end of their issue, but that could be added relatively easily (i believe)
Improve unresolved use error message
"use of undeclared type or module `foo`" doesn't mention that it could be a crate.
This error can happen when users forget to add a dependency to `Cargo.toml`, so I think it's important to mention that it could be a missing crate.
I've used a heuristic based on Rust's naming conventions. It complains about an unknown type if the ident starts with an upper-case letter, and crate or module otherwise. It seems to work very well. The expanded error help covers both an unknown type and a missing crate case.
Give a better error message for duplicate built-in macros
Minor follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/75176 giving a better error message for duplicate builtin macros. This would have made it a little easier to debug.
r? @petrochenkov
Previously, this would say no such macro existed, but this was
misleading, since the macro _did_ exist, it was just already seen.
- Say where the macro was previously defined
- Add long-form error message
