tweak wording of mismatched delimiter errors
This PR improves the wording of the "incorrect delimiter" error messages. Here's a quick rationale:
- *"un-closed" -> "unclosed"*: "unclosed" is valid English, so there's no need to hyphenate the prefix. This should be pretty uncontroversial, I think.
- *"close delimiter" -> "closing delimiter"*: In my anecdotal experience, I've always heard "closing delimiter" or "closing parenthesis". In addition, the codebase already uses this terminology in comments and function names more than "close delimiter", which could indicate that it's more intuitive.
- "incorrect delimiter" -> "mismatched delimiter": "Incorrect delimiter" is vague; why is it incorrect? "mismatched" clearly indicates why the delimiter is causing the error.
r? @estebank
- Use the span of the predicate
- Use the def's description instead of "struct/enum" (notably incorrect
for unions)
- Align formatting with other error messages
resolve: Minor cleanup of duplicate macro reexports
Enabled by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/65785 which changed `duplicate_macro_exports` from a lint to a hard error.
Refactor expression parsing thoroughly
Based on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66994 together with which this has refactored basically the entirety of `expr.rs`.
r? @estebank
Ensure that evaluating or validating a constant never reads from a static
r? @RalfJung
as per https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66302#issuecomment-554663387
This does not yet address the fact that evaluation of a constant can read from a static (under unleash-miri)
Initial implementation of `#![feature(bindings_after_at)]`
Following up on #16053, under the gate `#![feature(bindings_after_at)]`, `x @ Some(y)` is allowed subject to restrictions necessary for soundness.
The implementation and test suite should be fairly complete now.
One aspect that is not covered is the interaction with nested `#![feature(or_patterns)]`.
This is not possible to test at the moment in a good way because that feature has not progressed sufficiently and has fatal errors in MIR building. We should make sure to add such tests before we stabilize both features (but shipping one of them is fine).
r? @pnkfelix
cc @nikomatsakis @matthewjasper @pcwalton
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65490
Improve diagnostics for invalid assignment
- Improve wording and span information for invalid assignment diagnostics.
- Link to https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/issues/372 when it appears the user is trying a destructuring assignment.
- Make the equality constraint in `where` clauses error consistent with the invalid assignment error.
This purges uses of uninitialized where possible from test cases. Some
are merely moved over to the equally bad pattern of
MaybeUninit::uninit().assume_init() but with an annotation that this is
"the best we can do".
Require issue = "none" over issue = "0" in unstable attributes
These changes make the use of `issue = "none"` required in unstable attributes throughout the compiler.
Notes:
- #66299 is now in beta so `issue = "none"` is accepted.
- The `tidy` tool now fails on `issue = "0"`.
- Tests that used `issue = "0"` were changed to use `issue = "none"`, except for _one_ that asserts `issue = "0"` can still be used.
- The compiler still allows `issue = "0"` because some submodules require it, this could be disallowed once these are updated.
Resolves#41260
r? @varkor
