Under gate `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024_structural`.
Enabling `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024` at the same time allows the union
of what the individual gates allow.
This section of code depends on `rustc_apfloat` rather than our internal
types, so this is one potential ICE that we should be able to melt now.
This also fixes some missing range and match handling in `rustc_middle`.
Match ergonomics 2024: align implementation with RFC
- Remove eat-two-layers (`ref_pat_everywhere`)
- Consolidate `mut_preserve_binding_mode_2024` into `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024`
- `&mut` no longer peels off `&`
- Apply "no `ref mut` behind `&`" rule on all editions with `ref_pat_eat_one_layer_2024`
- Require `mut_ref` feature gate for all mutable by-reference bindings
r? ``@Nadrieril``
cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123076
``@rustbot`` label A-edition-2024 A-patterns
Match ergonomics: implement "`&`pat everywhere"
Implements the eat-two-layers (feature gate `and_pat_everywhere`, all editions) ~and the eat-one-layer (feature gate `and_eat_one_layer_2024`, edition 2024 only, takes priority on that edition when both feature gates are active)~ (EDIT: will be done in later PR) semantics.
cc #123076
r? ``@Nadrieril``
``@rustbot`` label A-patterns A-edition-2024
The original proposal allows reference patterns
with "compatible" mutability, however it's not clear
what that means so for now we require an exact match.
I don't know the type system code well, so if something
seems to not make sense it's probably because I made a
mistake
Experimental feature postfix match
This has a basic experimental implementation for the RFC postfix match (rust-lang/rfcs#3295, #121618). [Liaison is](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Postfix.20Match.20Liaison/near/423301844) ```@scottmcm``` with the lang team's [experimental feature gate process](https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/blob/master/src/how_to/experiment.md).
This feature has had an RFC for a while, and there has been discussion on it for a while. It would probably be valuable to see it out in the field rather than continue discussing it. This feature also allows to see how popular postfix expressions like this are for the postfix macros RFC, as those will take more time to implement.
It is entirely implemented in the parser, so it should be relatively easy to remove if needed.
This PR is split in to 5 commits to ease review.
1. The implementation of the feature & gating.
2. Add a MatchKind field, fix uses, fix pretty.
3. Basic rustfmt impl, as rustfmt crashes upon seeing this syntax without a fix.
4. Add new MatchSource to HIR for Clippy & other HIR consumers
make matching on NaN a hard error, and remove the rest of illegal_floating_point_literal_pattern
These arms would never be hit anyway, so the pattern makes little sense. We have had a future-compat lint against float matches in general for a *long* time, so I hope we can get away with immediately making this a hard error.
This is part of implementing https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3535.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41620 by removing the lint.
https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1456 updates the reference to match.
On functions with a default return type that influences the coerced type
of `match` arms, check if the failing arm is actually of type `!`. If
so, suggest changing the return type so the coercion against the prior
arms is successful.
```
error[E0308]: `match` arms have incompatible types
--> $DIR/match-tail-expr-never-type-error.rs:9:13
|
LL | fn bar(a: bool) {
| - help: try adding a return type: `-> i32`
LL | / match a {
LL | | true => 1,
| | - this is found to be of type `{integer}`
LL | | false => {
LL | | never()
| | ^^^^^^^
| | |
| | expected integer, found `()`
| | this expression is of type `!`, but it get's coerced to `()` due to its surrounding expression
LL | | }
LL | | }
| |_____- `match` arms have incompatible types
```
Fix#24157.
When writing a pattern to collect multiple entries of a slice in a
single binding, it is easy to misremember or typo the appropriate syntax
to do so, instead writing the experimental `X..` pattern syntax. When we
encounter a resolve error because `X` isn't available, we suggest
`X @ ..` as an alternative.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `rest` in this scope
--> $DIR/range-pattern-meant-to-be-slice-rest-pattern.rs:3:13
|
LL | [1, rest..] => println!("{rest:?}"),
| ^^^^ not found in this scope
|
help: if you meant to collect the rest of the slice in `rest`, use the at operator
|
LL | [1, rest @ ..] => println!("{rest:?}"),
| +
```
Fix#88404.
Jules Bertholet