Implement let-else type annotations natively
Tracking issue: #87335Fixes#89688, fixes#89807, edit: fixes #89960 as well
As explained in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/89688#issuecomment-940405082, the previous desugaring moved the let-else scrutinee into a dummy variable, which meant if you wanted to refer to it again in the else block, it had moved.
This introduces a new hir type, ~~`hir::LetExpr`~~ `hir::Let`, which takes over all the fields of `hir::ExprKind::Let(...)` and adds an optional type annotation. The `hir::Let` is then treated like a `hir::Local` when type checking a function body, specifically:
* `GatherLocalsVisitor` overrides a new `Visitor::visit_let_expr` and does pretty much exactly what it does for `visit_local`, assigning a local type to the `hir::Let` ~~(they could be deduplicated but they are right next to each other, so at least we know they're the same)~~
* It reuses the code in `check_decl_local` to typecheck the `hir::Let`, simply returning 'bool' for the expression type after doing that.
* ~~`FnCtxt::check_expr_let` passes this local type in to `demand_scrutinee_type`, and then imitates check_decl_local's pattern checking~~
* ~~`demand_scrutinee_type` (the blindest change for me, please give this extra scrutiny) uses this local type instead of of creating a new one~~
* ~~Just realised the `check_expr_with_needs` was passing NoExpectation further down, need to pass the type there too. And apparently this Expectation API already exists.~~
Some other misc notes:
* ~~Is the clippy code supposed to be autoformatted? I tried not to give huge diffs but maybe some rustfmt changes simply haven't hit it yet.~~
* in `rustc_ast_lowering/src/block.rs`, I noticed some existing `self.alias_attrs()` calls in `LoweringContext::lower_stmts` seem to be copying attributes from the lowered locals/etc to the statements. Is that right? I'm new at this, I don't know.
Pretty print empty blocks as {}
**Example:**
```rust
macro_rules! p {
($e:expr) => {
println!("{}", stringify!($e));
};
($i:item) => {
println!("{}", stringify!($i));
};
}
fn main() {
p!(if true {});
p!(struct S {});
}
```
**Before:**
```console
if true { }
struct S {
}
```
**After:**
```console
if true {}
struct S {}
```
This affects [`dbg!`](https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/macro.dbg.html), as well as ecosystem uses of stringify such as in [`anyhow::ensure!`](https://docs.rs/anyhow/1/anyhow/macro.ensure.html). Printing a `{ }` in today's heavily rustfmt'd world comes out looking jarring/sloppy.
Index and hash HIR as part of lowering
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88186
~Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/88880 (see merge commit).~
Once HIR is lowered, it is later indexed by the `index_hir` query and hashed for `crate_hash`. This PR moves those post-processing steps to lowering itself. As a side objective, the HIR crate data structure is refactored as an `IndexVec<LocalDefId, Option<OwnerInfo<'hir>>>` where `OwnerInfo` stores all the relevant information for an HIR owner.
r? `@michaelwoerister`
cc `@petrochenkov`
rfc3052 followup: Remove authors field from Cargo manifests
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information for contributors, we may as well
remove it from crates in this repo.
Since RFC 3052 soft deprecated the authors field anyway, hiding it from
crates.io, docs.rs, and making Cargo not add it by default, and it is
not generally up to date/useful information, we should remove it from
crates in this repo.
Found with https://github.com/est31/warnalyzer.
Dubious changes:
- Is anyone else using rustc_apfloat? I feel weird completely deleting
x87 support.
- Maybe some of the dead code in rustc_data_structures, in case someone
wants to use it in the future?
- Don't change rustc_serialize
I plan to scrap most of the json module in the near future (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/compiler-team/issues/418) and fixing the
tests needed more work than I expected.
TODO: check if any of the comments on the deleted code should be kept.
This currently creates a field which is always false on GenericParamDefKind for future use when
consts are permitted to have defaults
Update const_generics:default locations
Previously just ignored them, now actually do something about them.
Fix using type check instead of value
Add parsing
This adds all the necessary changes to lower const-generics defaults from parsing.
Change P<Expr> to AnonConst
This matches the arguments passed to instantiations of const generics, and makes it specific to
just anonymous constants.
Attempt to fix lowering bugs
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.
