Use bool in favor of Option<()> for diagnostics
#129344
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred in match checking cc @Nadrieril Some changes occurred in cc @BoxyUwU |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
less-option-unit-diagnostics
branch
from
91453c9 to
25ff9b6
Compare
jieyouxu
approved these changes
Aug 21, 2024
|
r? jieyouxu |
bors
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
bors
added
the
S-waiting-on-bors
matthiaskrgr
added a commit
to matthiaskrgr/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2024
Use shorthand field initialization syntax more aggressively in the compiler Caught these when cleaning up rust-lang#129344 and decided to run clippy to find the rest
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2024
…iaskrgr Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#128627 (Special case DUMMY_SP to emit line 0/column 0 locations on DWARF platforms.) - rust-lang#128843 (Minor Refactor: Remove a Redundant Conditional Check) - rust-lang#129179 (CFI: Erase regions when projecting ADT to its transparent non-1zst field) - rust-lang#129281 (Tweak unreachable lint wording) - rust-lang#129312 (Fix stability attribute of `impl !Error for &str`) - rust-lang#129332 (Avoid extra `cast()`s after `CStr::as_ptr()`) - rust-lang#129339 (Make `ArgAbi::make_indirect_force` more specific) - rust-lang#129344 (Use `bool` in favor of `Option<()>` for diagnostics) - rust-lang#129345 (Use shorthand field initialization syntax more aggressively in the compiler) - rust-lang#129355 (fix comment on PlaceMention semantics) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
We should also add support for |
|
@estebank: We do already support that. |
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#129345 - compiler-errors:scratch4, r=jieyouxu Use shorthand field initialization syntax more aggressively in the compiler Caught these when cleaning up rust-lang#129344 and decided to run clippy to find the rest
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 21, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#129344 - compiler-errors:less-option-unit-diagnostics, r=jieyouxu Use `bool` in favor of `Option<()>` for diagnostics We originally only supported `Option<()>` for optional notes/labels, but we now support `bool`. Let's use that, since it usually leads to more readable code. I'm not removing the support from the derive macro, though I guess we could error on it... 🤔
|
@compiler-errors I'm surprised, because I tried doing that recently and the macro didn't accept it. Must have have done something wrong 🤷♂️ |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
We originally only supported
Option<()>for optional notes/labels, but we now supportbool. Let's use that, since it usually leads to more readable code.I'm not removing the support from the derive macro, though I guess we could error on it... 🤔