Update standard library for IntoIterator implementation of arrays
This PR partially resolves issue #84513 of updating the standard library part.
I haven't found any remaining doctest examples which are using iterators over e.g. &i32 instead of just i32 in the standard library. Can anyone point me to them if there's remaining any?
Thanks!
r? ```@m-ou-se```
deal with `const_evaluatable_checked` in `ConstEquate`
Failing to evaluate two constants which do not contain inference variables should not result in ambiguity.
Suggest adding a type parameter for impls
Add a new suggestion upon encountering an unknown type in a `impl` that suggests adding a new type parameter. This diagnostic suggests to add a new type parameter even though it may be a const parameter, however after adding the parameter and running rustc again a follow up error steers the user to change the type parameter to a const parameter.
```rust
struct X<const C: ()>();
impl X<C> {}
```
suggests
```
error[E0412]: cannot find type `C` in this scope
--> bar.rs:2:8
|
1 | struct X<const C: ()>();
| ------------------------ similarly named struct `X` defined here
2 | impl X<C> {}
| ^
|
help: a struct with a similar name exists
|
2 | impl X<X> {}
| ^
help: you might be missing a type parameter
|
2 | impl<C> X<C> {}
| ^^^
```
After adding a type parameter the code now becomes
```rust
struct X<const C: ()>();
impl<C> X<C> {}
```
and the error now fully steers the user towards the correct code
```
error[E0747]: type provided when a constant was expected
--> bar.rs:2:11
|
2 | impl<C> X<C> {}
| ^
|
help: consider changing this type parameter to be a `const` generic
|
2 | impl<const C: ()> X<C> {}
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
```
r? `@estebank`
Somewhat related #84946
Update BARE_TRAIT_OBJECT and ELLIPSIS_INCLUSIVE_RANGE_PATTERNS to errors in Rust 2021
This addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81244 by updating two lints to errors in the Rust 2021 edition.
r? `@estebank`
Also tweaked the message a bit by
- removing the hyphen, because in my opinion the hyphen makes the
message a bit harder to read, especially combined with the backticks;
- adding the word "be", because I think it's a bit clearer that way.
combine: stop eagerly evaluating consts
`super_relate_consts` eagerly evaluates constants which doesn't seem too great.
I now also finally understand why all of the unused substs test passed. The reason being
that we just evaluated the constants in `super_relate_consts` 😆
While this change isn't strictly necessary as evaluating consts here doesn't hurt, it still feels a lot cleaner to do it this way
r? `@oli-obk` `@nikomatsakis`
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
const_evaluatable_checked: Stop eagerly erroring in `is_const_evaluatable`
Fixes#82279
We don't want to be emitting errors inside of is_const_evaluatable because we may call this during selection where it should be able to fail silently
There were two errors being emitted in `is_const_evaluatable`. The one causing the compile error in #82279 was inside the match arm for `FailureKind::MentionsParam` but I moved the other error being emitted too since it made things cleaner imo
The `NotConstEvaluatable` enum \*should\* have a fourth variant for when we fail to evaluate a concrete const, e.g. `0 - 1` but that cant happen until #81339
cc `@oli-obk` `@lcnr`
r? `@nikomatsakis`
