Elaborate `Future::Output` when printing opaque `impl Future` type
I would love to see the `Output =` type when printing type errors involving opaque `impl Future`.
[Test code](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=a800b481edd31575fbcaf5771a9c3678)
Before (cut relevant part of output):
```
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> /home/michael/test.rs:5:19
|
5 | async fn bar() -> usize {
| ^^^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
= note: expected type `usize`
found opaque type `impl Future`
```
After:
```
note: while checking the return type of the `async fn`
--> /home/michael/test.rs:5:19
|
5 | async fn bar() -> usize {
| ^^^^^ checked the `Output` of this `async fn`, found opaque type
= note: expected type `usize`
found opaque type `impl Future<Output = usize>`
```
Note the "found opaque type `impl Future<Output = usize>`" in the new output.
----
Questions:
1. We skip printing the output type when it's a projection, since I have been seeing some types like `impl Future<Output = <[static generator@/home/michael/test.rs:2:11: 2:21] as Generator<ResumeTy>>::Return>` which are not particularly helpful and leak implementation detail.
* Am I able to normalize this type within `rustc_middle::ty::print::pretty`? Alternatively, can we normalize it when creating the diagnostic? Otherwise, I'm fine with skipping it and falling back to the old output.
* Should I suppress any other types? I didn't encounter anything other than this generator projection type.
2. Not sure what the formatting of this should be. Do I include spaces in `Output = `?
Some "parenthesis" and "parentheses" fixes
"Parenthesis" is the singular (e.g. one `(` or one `)`) and "parentheses" is the plural (multiple `(` or `)`s) and this is not hard to mix up so here are some fixes for that.
Inspired by #89958
Consistently use 'supertrait'.
A subset of places referred to 'super-trait', so this changes them
to all use 'supertrait'. This matches 'supertype' and some other
usages. An exception is 'auto-trait' which is consistently used
in that manner.
A subset of places referred to 'super-trait', so this changes them
to all use 'supertrait'. This matches 'supertype' and some other
usages. An exception is 'auto-trait' which is consistently used
in that manner.
"Fix" an overflow in byte position math
r? `@estebank`
help! I fixed the ICE only to brick the diagnostic.
I mean, it was wrong previously (using an already expanded macro span), but it is really bad now XD
Recover from `Foo(a: 1, b: 2)`
Detect likely `struct` literal using parentheses as delimiters and emit
targeted suggestion instead of type ascription parse error.
Fix#61326.
Revert anon union parsing
Revert PR #84571 and #85515, which implemented anonymous union parsing in a manner that broke the context-sensitivity for the `union` keyword and thus broke stable Rust code.
Fix#88583.
Accept `m!{ .. }.method()` and `m!{ .. }?` statements.
This PR fixes something that I keep running into when using `quote!{}.into()` in a proc macro to convert the `proc_macro2::TokenStream` to a `proc_macro::TokenStream`:
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `.`
--> src/lib.rs:6:6
|
4 | quote! {
5 | ...
6 | }.into()
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
```
(No output, compiles fine.)
---
Context:
For expressions like `{ 1 }` and `if true { 1 } else { 2 }`, we accept them as full statements without a trailing `;`, which means the following is not accepted:
```rust
{ 1 } - 1 // error
```
since that is parsed as two statements: `{ 1 }` and `-1`. Syntactically correct, but the type of `{ 1 }` should be `()` as there is no `;`.
However, for specifically `.` and `?` after the `}`, we do [continue parsing it as an expression](13db8440bb/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs (L864-L876)):
```rust
{ "abc" }.len(); // ok
```
For braced macro invocations, we do not do this:
```rust
vec![1, 2, 3].len(); // ok
vec!{1, 2, 3}.len(); // error
```
(It parses `vec!{1, 2, 3}` as a full statement, and then complains about `.len()` not being a valid expression.)
This PR changes this to also look for a `.` and `?` after a braced macro invocation. We can be sure the macro is an expression and not a full statement in those cases, since no statement can start with a `.` or `?`.
Use smaller spans for some structured suggestions
Use more accurate suggestion spans for
* argument parse error
* fully qualified path
* missing code block type
* numeric casts
Improve diagnostics for unary plus operators (#88276)
This pull request improves the diagnostics emitted on parsing a unary plus operator. See #88276.
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `+`
--> src/main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
error: leading `+` is not supported
--> main.rs:2:13
|
2 | let x = +1;
| ^
| |
| unexpected `+`
| help: try removing the `+`
```
Point at unclosed delimiters as part of the primary MultiSpan
Both the place where the parser encounters a needed closed delimiter and
the unclosed opening delimiter are important, so they should get the
same level of highlighting in the output.
_Context: https://twitter.com/mwk4/status/1430631546432675840_
Introduce `let...else`
Tracking issue: #87335
The trickiest part for me was enforcing the diverging else block with clear diagnostics. Perhaps the obvious solution is to expand to `let _: ! = ..`, but I decided against this because, when a "mismatched type" error is found in typeck, there is no way to trace where in the HIR the expected type originated, AFAICT. In order to pass down this information, I believe we should introduce `Expectation::LetElseNever(HirId)` or maybe add `HirId` to `Expectation::HasType`, but I left that as a future enhancement. For now, I simply assert that the block is `!` with a custom `ObligationCauseCode`, and I think this is clear enough, at least to start. The downside here is that the error points at the entire block rather than the specific expression with the wrong type. I left a todo to this effect.
Overall, I believe this PR is feature-complete with regard to the RFC.
