Skip to content
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

Downgrade option_if_let_else to nursery #7568

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 15, 2021

Conversation

dtolnay
Copy link
Member

@dtolnay dtolnay commented Aug 14, 2021

I believe that this lint's loose understanding of ownership (#5822, #6737) makes it unsuitable to be enabled by default in its current state, even as a pedantic lint.

Additionally the lint has known problems with type inference (#6137), though I may be willing to consider this a non-blocker in isolation if it weren't for the ownership false positives.

A fourth false positive involving const fn: #7567.

But on top of these, for me the biggest issue is I basically fully agree with #6137 (comment). In my experience this lint universally makes code worse even when the resulting code does compile.


changelog: remove [option_if_let_else] from default set of enabled lints

@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @llogiq

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Aug 14, 2021
@llogiq
Copy link
Contributor

llogiq commented Aug 15, 2021

Thank you! @bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 15, 2021

📌 Commit 3c8eaa8 has been approved by llogiq

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 15, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 3c8eaa8 with merge 5449e23...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 15, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: llogiq
Pushing 5449e23 to master...

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants