Note scope of TAIT more accurately #103383
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
A-translation
|
cc @davidtwco, @compiler-errors, @JohnTitor, @estebank, @TaKO8Ki |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
compiler-errors
added
the
F-type_alias_impl_trait
oli-obk
reviewed
Oct 22, 2022
| _ if scope == hir::CRATE_HIR_ID => "module", | ||
| Node::Item(hir::Item { kind: hir::ItemKind::Mod(_), .. }) => "module", | ||
| Node::Item(hir::Item { kind: hir::ItemKind::Impl(_), .. }) => "impl", | ||
| _ => "item", |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not sure how to test this. Of would require mentioning the TAIT outside of a function body where it's defined. Maybe span_bug it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you talking about the "item" arm specifically? This is an example of where it would now print "item":
#![feature(type_alias_impl_trait)]
fn foo() {
type Tait = impl Sized;
}I guess I could make it specifically match a few more cases where we are allowed by the grammar to place TAITs like function bodies, and then span_bug the rest?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right... it maybe useful to special case all of these (e.g. the crate root mentioning the same crate (can we even get that error?))
But this is already correct now, so let's merge it
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2022
Note scope of TAIT more accurately This maybe explains why the person was confused in rust-lang#101897, since we say "same module" but really should've said "same impl". r? `@oli-obk`
Dylan-DPC
added a commit
to Dylan-DPC/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 28, 2022
Note scope of TAIT more accurately This maybe explains why the person was confused in rust-lang#101897, since we say "same module" but really should've said "same impl". r? ``@oli-obk``
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2022
Note scope of TAIT more accurately This maybe explains why the person was confused in rust-lang#101897, since we say "same module" but really should've said "same impl". r? `@oli-obk`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2022
…iaskrgr Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#102961 (Make `CStr::from_ptr` `const`.) - rust-lang#103342 (Add test for issue 98634) - rust-lang#103383 (Note scope of TAIT more accurately) - rust-lang#103656 (Specialize ToString for Symbol) - rust-lang#103663 (rustdoc: remove redundant CSS/DOM `div.search-container`) - rust-lang#103664 (rustdoc-json-types: Improve ItemSummary::path docs) - rust-lang#103704 (Add a test for TAIT used with impl/dyn Trait inside RPIT) Failed merges: - rust-lang#103618 (Rename some `OwnerId` fields.) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This maybe explains why the person was confused in #101897, since we say "same module" but really should've said "same impl".
r? @oli-obk