Use `token_descr` more in error messages
This is the first two commits from #124141, put into their own PR to get things rolling. Commit messages have the details.
r? ``@estebank``
cc ``@petrochenkov``
Remove the "which is required by `{root_obligation}`" post-script in
"the trait `X` is not implemented for `Y`" explanation in E0277. This
information is already conveyed in the notes explaining requirements,
making it redundant while making the text (particularly in labels)
harder to read.
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
vs the prior
```
error[E0277]: the trait bound `NotCopy: Copy` is not satisfied
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:10:13
|
LL | static FOO: IsCopy<Option<NotCopy>> = IsCopy { t: None };
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ the trait `Copy` is not implemented for `NotCopy`, which is required by `Option<NotCopy>: Copy`
|
= note: required for `Option<NotCopy>` to implement `Copy`
note: required by a bound in `IsCopy`
--> $DIR/wf-static-type.rs:7:17
|
LL | struct IsCopy<T:Copy> { t: T }
| ^^^^ required by this bound in `IsCopy`
```
Much like the previous commit.
I think the removal of "the token" in each message is fine here. There
are many more error messages that mention tokens without saying "the
token" than those that do say it.
By using `token_descr`, as is done for many other errors, we can get
slightly better descriptions in error messages, e.g.
"macro expansion ignores token `let` and any following" becomes
"macro expansion ignores keyword `let` and any tokens following".
This will be more important once invisible delimiters start being
mentioned in error messages -- without this commit, that leads to error
messages such as "error at ``" because invisible delimiters are
pretty printed as an empty string.
Add suggestion for removing invalid path sep `::` in fn def
Add suggestion for removing invalid path separator `::` in function definition.
for example: `fn invalid_path_separator::<T>() {}`
fixes#130791
```
error: expected a pattern, found an expression
--> f889.rs:3:13
|
3 | let (x, y.drop()) = (1, 2); //~ ERROR
| ^^^^^^^^ not a pattern
|
= note: arbitrary expressions are not allowed in patterns: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-00-patterns.html>
error[E0532]: expected a pattern, found a function call
--> f889.rs:2:13
|
2 | let (x, drop(y)) = (1, 2); //~ ERROR
| ^^^^ not a tuple struct or tuple variant
|
= note: function calls are not allowed in patterns: <https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch18-00-patterns.html>
```
Fix#97200.
rustc_expand: remember module `#[path]`s during expansion
During invocation collection, if a module item parsed from a `#[path]` attribute needed a second pass after parsing, its path wouldn't get added to the file path stack, so cycle detection broke. This checks the `#[path]` in such cases, so that it gets added appropriately. I think it should work identically to the case for external modules that don't need a second pass, but I'm not 100% sure.
Fixes#97589
Implement a Method to Seal `DiagInner`'s Suggestions
This PR adds a method on `DiagInner` called `.seal_suggestions()` to prevent new suggestions from being added while preserving existing suggestions.
This is useful because currently there is no way to prevent new suggestions from being added to a diagnostic. `.disable_suggestions()` is the closest but it gets rid of all suggestions before and after the call.
Therefore, `.seal_suggestions()` can be used when, for example, misspelled keyword is detected and reported. In such cases, we may want to prevent other suggestions from being added to the diagnostic, as they would likely be meaningless once the misspelled keyword is identified. For context: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129899#discussion_r1741307132
To store an additional state, the type of the `suggestions` field in `DiagInner` was changed into a three variant enum. While this change affects files across different crates, care was taken to preserve the existing code's semantics. This is validated by the fact that all UI tests pass without any modifications.
r? chenyukang
Suggest the correct pattern syntax on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant
Closes#126243
I add a suggestion on usage of unit variant pattern for a struct variant.
This PR detects misspelled keywords using two heuristics:
1. Lowercasing the unexpected identifier.
2. Using edit distance to find a keyword similar to the unexpected identifier.
However, it does not detect each and every misspelled keyword to
minimize false positives and ambiguities. More details about the
implementation can be found in the comments.
For codepoint boundary assertion triggered by a let stmt compound
assignment removal suggestion when encountering recovered multi-byte
compound ops.
Issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128845>
Add limit for unclosed delimiters in lexer diagnostic
Fixes#127868
The first commit shows the original diagnostic, and the second commit shows the changes.
Improve `extern "<abi>" unsafe fn()` error message
These errors were already reported in #87217, and fixed by #87235 but missed the case of an explicit ABI.
This PR does not cover multiple keywords like `extern "C" pub const unsafe fn()`, but I don't know what a good way to cover this would be. It also seems rarer than `extern "C" unsafe` which I saw happen a few times in workshops.
Replace ASCII control chars with Unicode Control Pictures
Replace ASCII control chars like `CR` with Unicode Control Pictures like `␍`:
```
error: bare CR not allowed in doc-comment
--> $DIR/lex-bare-cr-string-literal-doc-comment.rs:3:32
|
LL | /// doc comment with bare CR: '␍'
| ^
```
Centralize the checking of unicode char width for the purposes of CLI display in one place. Account for the new replacements. Remove unneeded tracking of "zero-width" unicode chars, as we calculate these in the `SourceMap` as needed now.
Reorder trait bound modifiers *after* `for<...>` binder in trait bounds
This PR suggests changing the grammar of trait bounds from:
```
[CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] [?] [BINDER] [TRAIT_PATH]
const async ? for<'a> Sized
```
to
```
([BINDER] [CONSTNESS] [ASYNCNESS] | [?]) [TRAIT_PATH]
```
i.e., either
```
? Sized
```
or
```
for<'a> const async Sized
```
(but not both)
### Why?
I think it's strange that the binder applies "more tightly" than the `?` trait polarity. This becomes even weirder when considering that we (or at least, I) want to have `async` trait bounds expressed like:
```
where T: for<'a> async Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
and not:
```
where T: async for<'a> Fn(&'a ()) -> i32,
```
### Fallout
No crates on crater use this syntax, presumably because it's literally useless. This will require modifying the reference grammar, though.
### Alternatives
If this is not desirable, then we can alternatively keep parsing `for<'a>` after the `?` but deprecate it with either an FCW (or an immediate hard error), and begin parsing `for<'a>` *before* the `?`.
We are moving toward forbidding `missing_fragment_specifier` either in
edition 2024 or unconditionally. Make a first step toward this by
ensuring crates that rely on the old behavior are reported when used as
dependencies.
Tracking issue: <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/128143>
Tweak suggestions when using incorrect type of enum literal
More accurate suggestions when writing wrong style of enum variant literal:
```
error[E0533]: expected value, found struct variant `E::Empty3`
--> $DIR/empty-struct-braces-expr.rs:18:14
|
LL | let e3 = E::Empty3;
| ^^^^^^^^^ not a value
|
help: you might have meant to create a new value of the struct
|
LL | let e3 = E::Empty3 {};
| ++
```
```
error[E0533]: expected value, found struct variant `E::V`
--> $DIR/struct-literal-variant-in-if.rs:10:13
|
LL | if x == E::V { field } {}
| ^^^^ not a value
|
help: you might have meant to create a new value of the struct
|
LL | if x == (E::V { field }) {}
| + +
```
```
error[E0618]: expected function, found enum variant `Enum::Unit`
--> $DIR/suggestion-highlights.rs:15:5
|
LL | Unit,
| ---- enum variant `Enum::Unit` defined here
...
LL | Enum::Unit();
| ^^^^^^^^^^--
| |
| call expression requires function
|
help: `Enum::Unit` is a unit enum variant, and does not take parentheses to be constructed
|
LL - Enum::Unit();
LL + Enum::Unit;
|
```
```
error[E0599]: no variant or associated item named `tuple` found for enum `Enum` in the current scope
--> $DIR/suggestion-highlights.rs:36:11
|
LL | enum Enum {
| --------- variant or associated item `tuple` not found for this enum
...
LL | Enum::tuple;
| ^^^^^ variant or associated item not found in `Enum`
|
help: there is a variant with a similar name
|
LL | Enum::Tuple(/* i32 */);
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~;
|
```
Tweak "field not found" suggestion when giving struct literal for tuple struct type:
```
error[E0560]: struct `S` has no field named `x`
--> $DIR/nested-non-tuple-tuple-struct.rs:8:19
|
LL | pub struct S(f32, f32);
| - `S` defined here
...
LL | let _x = (S { x: 1.0, y: 2.0 }, S { x: 3.0, y: 4.0 });
| ^ field does not exist
|
help: `S` is a tuple struct, use the appropriate syntax
|
LL | let _x = (S(/* f32 */, /* f32 */), S { x: 3.0, y: 4.0 });
| ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We already point these out quite aggressively, telling people not to use them, but would normally be rendered as nothing. Having them visible will make it easier for people to actually deal with them.
```
error: unicode codepoint changing visible direction of text present in literal
--> $DIR/unicode-control-codepoints.rs:26:22
|
LL | println!("{:?}", '�');
| ^-^
| ||
| |'\u{202e}'
| this literal contains an invisible unicode text flow control codepoint
|
= note: these kind of unicode codepoints change the way text flows on applications that support them, but can cause confusion because they change the order of characters on the screen
= help: if their presence wasn't intentional, you can remove them
help: if you want to keep them but make them visible in your source code, you can escape them
|
LL | println!("{:?}", '\u{202e}');
| ~~~~~~~~
```
vs the previous
```
error: unicode codepoint changing visible direction of text present in literal
--> $DIR/unicode-control-codepoints.rs:26:22
|
LL | println!("{:?}", '');
| ^-
| ||
| |'\u{202e}'
| this literal contains an invisible unicode text flow control codepoint
|
= note: these kind of unicode codepoints change the way text flows on applications that support them, but can cause confusion because they change the order of characters on the screen
= help: if their presence wasn't intentional, you can remove them
help: if you want to keep them but make them visible in your source code, you can escape them
|
LL | println!("{:?}", '\u{202e}');
| ~~~~~~~~
```
