Point at the span for the definition of ADTs internal to the current
crate.
Look at the leading char of the ident to determine whether we're
expecting a likely fn or any of a fn, a tuple struct or a tuple variant.
Turn fn `add_typo_suggestion` into a `Resolver` method.
Remove blanket check for existence of other errors before emitting
"type annotation needed" errors, and add some eager checks to avoid
adding obligations when they refer to types that reference
`[type error]` in order to reduce unneded errors.
```
error[E0282]: type annotations needed in `std::result::Result<i32, E>`
--> file7.rs:3:13
|
3 | let b = Ok(4);
| - ^^ cannot infer type for `E` in `std::result::Result<i32, E>`
| |
| consider giving `b` a type`
```
When encountering code where type inference fails, add more actionable
information:
```
fn main() {
let foo = Vec::new();
}
```
```
error[E0282]: type annotations needed for `std::vec::Vec<_>`
--> $DIR/vector-no-ann.rs:2:16
|
LL | let foo = Vec::new();
| --- ^^^^^^^^ cannot infer type for `T`
| |
| consider giving `foo` the type `std::vec::Vec<_>` with the type parameter `T` specified
```
We still need to modify type printing to optionally accept a
`TypeVariableTable` in order to properly print `std::vec::Vec<T>`.
CC #25633.
use structured suggestion for method calls
Furthermore, don't suggest calling the method if it is part of a place
expression, as this is invalid syntax.
I'm thinking it might be worth putting a label on the method assignment span like "this is a method" and removing the span from the "methods are immutable" text so it isn't reported twice.
The suggestions in `src/test/ui/did_you_mean/issue-40396.stderr` are suboptimal. I could check if the containing expression is `BinOp`, but I'm not sure if that's general enough. Any ideas?
r? @estebank
I also added `// skip-codegen` to each one, to address potential concerns
that this change would otherwise slow down our test suite spending time
generating code for files that are really just meant to be checks of
compiler diagnostics.
(However, I will say: My preference is to not use `// skip-codegen` if
one can avoid it. We can use all the testing of how we drive LLVM that
we can get...)
(Updated post rebase.)
Give a special message when the later use is from a call. Use the span
of the callee instead of the whole expression. For conflicting borrow
messages say that the later use is of the first borrow.
