This commit is just covering the feature gate itself and the tests
that made direct use of `!` and thus need to opt back into the
feature.
A follow on commit brings back the other change that motivates the
revert: Namely, going back to the old rules for falling back to `()`.
Replace feature(never_type) with feature(exhaustive_patterns).
feature(exhaustive_patterns) only covers the pattern-exhaustives checks
that used to be covered by feature(never_type)
First, we keep a `CoerceMany` now to find the LUB of all the break
expressions. Second, this `CoerceMany` is actually an
`Option<CoerceMany>`, and we store `None` for loops where "break with an
expression" is disallowed. This avoids silly duplicate errors about a
type mismatch, since the loops pass already reports an error that the
break cannot have an expression. Finally, since we now detect an invalid
break target during HIR lowering, refactor `find_loop` to be infallible.
Adjust tests as needed:
- some spans from breaks are slightly different
- break up a single loop into multiple since `CoerceMany` silences
redundant and derived errors
- add a ui test that we only give on error for loop-break-value
This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, `loop` loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop. `while` loops are unchanged.
- `break` respects contexts in which expressions may not end with braced
blocks. That is, `while break { break-value } { while-body }` is
illegal; this preserves backwards compatibility.
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
