Currently, we emit a "try adding a comma" suggestion if a comma is
missing in a struct definition. However, we emit no such suggestion if a
comma is missing in a struct initializer.
This commit adds a "try adding a comma" suggestion when we don't find a
comma during the parsing of a struct initializer field.
The change to `src/test/ui/parser/removed-syntax-with-1.stderr` isn't
great, but I don't see a good way of avoiding it.
Account for type params on method without parentheses
Account for those type parameters in the structured suggestion when forgetting to call method:
```
error[E0615]: attempted to take value of method `collect` on type `std::vec::IntoIter<_>`
--> $DIR/method-missing-parentheses.rs:2:32
|
LL | let _ = vec![].into_iter().collect::<usize>;
| ^^^^^^^---------
| |
| help: use parentheses to call the method: `collect::<usize>()`
```
change an instance of span_bug() to struct_span_err() to avoid ICE
After #67148, the `span_bug()` in `parse_ty_tuple_or_parens()` is reachable because `parse_paren_comma_seq()` can return an `Ok()` even in cases where it encounters an error.
This pull request prevents an ICE in such cases by replacing the `span_bug()` with `struct_span_error()`.
Fixes#68890.
stop using BytePos for computing spans in librustc_parse/parser/mod.rs
Computing spans using logic such as `self.token.span.lo() + BytePos(1)` can cause internal compiler errors like #68730 when non-ascii characters are given as input.
#68735 partially addressed this problem, but only for one case. Moreover, its usage of `next_point()` does not actually align with what `bump_with()` expects. For example, given the token `>>=`, we should pass the span consisting of the final two characters `>=`, but `next_point()` advances the span beyond the end of the `=`.
This pull request instead computes the start of the new span by doing `start_point(self.token.span).hi()`. This matches `self.token.span.lo() + BytePos(1)` in the common case where the characters are ascii, and it gracefully handles multibyte characters.
Fixes#68783.
parser: syntactically allow `self` in all `fn` contexts
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/68728.
`self` parameters are now *syntactically* allowed as the first parameter irrespective of item context (and in function pointers). Instead, semantic validation (`ast_validation`) is used.
r? @petrochenkov
Suggest path separator for single-colon typos
This commit adds guidance for when a user means to type a path, but ends
up typing a single colon, such as `<<Impl as T>:Ty>`.
This change seemed pertinent as the current error message is
particularly misleading, emitting `error: unmatched angle bracket`,
despite the angle bracket being matched later on, leaving the user to
track down the typo'd colon.
Address inconsistency in using "is" with "declared here"
"is" was generally used for NLL diagnostics, but not other diagnostics. Using "is" makes the diagnostics sound more natural and readable, so it seems sensible to commit to them throughout.
r? @Centril
This commit adds guidance for when a user means to type a path, but ends
up typing a single colon, such as `<<Impl as T>:Ty>`.
This change seemed pertinent as the current error message is
particularly misleading, emitting `error: unmatched angle bracket`,
despite the angle bracket being matched later on, leaving the user to
track down the typo'd colon.
This doesn't mention that using an existing lifetime is possible, but
that would hopefully be clear as always being an option. The intention
of this is to teach newcomers what the lifetime syntax is.
Add suggestions when encountering chained comparisons
Ideally, we'd also prevent the type error, which is just extra noise, but that will require moving the error from the parser, and I think the suggestion makes things clear enough for now.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65659.
parser: reduce diversity in error handling mechanisms
Instead of having e.g. `span_err`, `fatal`, etc., we prefer to move towards uniformly using `struct_span_err` thus making it harder to emit fatal and/or unstructured diagnostics.
This PR also de-fatalizes some diagnostics.
r? @estebank
