-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.9k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Properly deal with GATs when looking for method chains to point at #121912
Conversation
| ^ `Base::Base` is `<T as Base>::Base<_>` here | ||
... | ||
LL | input.fmap(f1).fmap(f2) | ||
| -------- `Base::Base` remains `_` here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
useless
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
We can likely just check for _
and avoid the label then, as a quick change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can either change the select_where_possible
a few lines below my changes to select_all_or_error
which would make this note go away or instead add an is_ty_var
check.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Can you check if select_all_or_error
will result in any currently "good" note going away too?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'll make CI do the dirty work...
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I can either change the
select_where_possible
a few lines below my changes toselect_all_or_error
which would make this note go away or instead add anis_ty_var
check.
Went with is_ty_var
since select_all_or_error
turned out to be too strict.
--> $DIR/method-chain-gats.rs:13:29 | ||
| | ||
LL | fn fmap2<T, A, B, C>(input: T, f1: impl Fn(A) -> B, f2: impl Fn(B) -> C) -> T::Base<C> | ||
| ^ `Base::Base` is `<T as Base>::Base<_>` here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
wrong location I suppose?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the location is "right", because the logic is looking for the root element of the method chain (even accounting for let
bindings and fn
arguments), so this is trying to say that <Base>::Base<_> = <T as Base>::Base<_>
, which is somewhat useless information.
I do have to say that the test code makes my head spin, even without accounting for the error message 😬
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think the only thing left to do is to improve this label to better account for GATs, but that shouldn't happen in this PR.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The spurious labels seem pre-existing. r=me if you don't want to rework them in this PR.
819d395
to
5b43cfa
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
5b43cfa
to
6035e87
Compare
@bors r=compiler-errors,estebank |
…piler-errors,estebank Properly deal with GATs when looking for method chains to point at Fixes rust-lang#121898. ~~While it prevents an ICE and the structured suggestion is correct, the method chain diagnostic notes are weird / useless / incorrect judging by a quick look. I guess I should improve that in this PR.~~ Sufficiently taken care of. r? estebank or compiler-errors (rust-lang#105332, rust-lang#105674).
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
Network failure |
…iaskrgr Rollup of 3 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#121130 (Suggest moving definition if non-found macro_rules! is defined later) - rust-lang#121912 (Properly deal with GATs when looking for method chains to point at) - rust-lang#121927 (Add a proper `with_no_queries` to printing) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Rollup merge of rust-lang#121912 - fmease:diag-method-chains-gat, r=compiler-errors,estebank Properly deal with GATs when looking for method chains to point at Fixes rust-lang#121898. ~~While it prevents an ICE and the structured suggestion is correct, the method chain diagnostic notes are weird / useless / incorrect judging by a quick look. I guess I should improve that in this PR.~~ Sufficiently taken care of. r? estebank or compiler-errors (rust-lang#105332, rust-lang#105674).
Fixes #121898.
While it prevents an ICE and the structured suggestion is correct, the method chain diagnostic notes are weird / useless / incorrect judging by a quick look. I guess I should improve that in this PR.Sufficiently taken care of.r? estebank or compiler-errors (#105332, #105674).