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.
Old error output:
3 | let _: usize = $f;
| ----- ^ expected `usize`, found struct `Baz`
| |
| expected due to this
New error output:
3 | let _: usize = $f;
| ----- ^^ expected `usize`, found struct `Baz`
| |
| expected due to this
Old error output:
= note: this warning originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: wrap this expression in parentheses
|
4 | break '_l $f(;)
| ^ ^
New error output:
= note: this warning originates in the macro `foo` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
help: wrap this expression in parentheses
|
4 | break '_l ($f);
| ^ ^
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.
Link to edition guide instead of issues for 2021 lints.
This changes the 2021 lints to not link to github issues, but to the edition guide instead.
Fixes #86996
* On suggestions that include deletions, use a diff inspired output format
* When suggesting addition, use `+` as underline
* Color highlight modified span
Remove unnecessary trailing whitespace from error messages
Some error messages currently contain unnecessary trailing whitespace. There are some legitimate reasons for having trailing whitespace in the output, such as for uniform indentation of possibly-empty input lines, but the whitespace I have addressed here occurs in a line used only for spacing, and I see no reason why that should have trailing whitespace (spacing lines inserted in other places also don't have trailing whitespace).
I have also removed a superfluous call to `buffer.putc()`, which has no effect because the same character is already placed there by `draw_col_separator()`.
Use `git diff --ignore-space-at-eol` to see my changes; otherwise the diff is quite large due to the whitespace removed from expected outputs in `src/test/ui/`.
Allow labeled loops as value expressions for `break`
Fixes#86948. This is currently allowed:
```rust
return 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break ('label: loop { break 'label 42; });
break 1 + 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
break 'outer 'inner: loop { break 'inner 42; };
```
But not this:
```rust
break 'label: loop { break 'label 42; };
```
I have fixed this, so that the above now parses as an unlabeled break with a labeled loop as its value expression.
Fix a parser ICE on invalid `fn` body
Fixes#87635
A better fix would add a check for `fn` body on `expected_one_of_not_found` but I haven't come up with a graceful way. Any idea?
r? ```@oli-obk``` ```@estebank```
After this commit, `unsafe async fn ...` now suggests the `async unsafe` fix
instead of misunderstanding the issue.
This is not perfect for repeated keywords (`const async const`) and for
keywords that are misplaced after `extern "some abi"` because of the way
`check_fn_font_matter` works, but changing it breaks so many tests and
diagnostics it has been judged too high a cost for this PR.
Various diagnostics clean ups/tweaks
* Always point at macros, including derive macros
* Point at non-local items that introduce a trait requirement
* On private associated item, point at definition
* Always point at macros, including derive macros
* Point at non-local items that introduce a trait requirement
* On private associated item, point at definition
Add diagnostics for mistyped inclusive range
Inclusive ranges are correctly typed as `..=`. However, it's quite easy to think of it as being like `==`, and type `..==` instead. This PR adds helpful diagnostics for this case.
Resolves#86395 (there are some other cases there, but I think those should probably have separate issues).
r? `@estebank`
