-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.7k
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
E0063 should not suggest adding inaccessible private fields #76077
Labels
A-diagnostics
Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints
C-enhancement
Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one.
D-newcomer-roadblock
Diagnostics: Confusing error or lint; hard to understand for new users.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
jonas-schievink
added
A-diagnostics
Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints
C-enhancement
Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
labels
Aug 29, 2020
estebank
added
the
D-newcomer-roadblock
Diagnostics: Confusing error or lint; hard to understand for new users.
label
Aug 29, 2020
zackmdavis
added a commit
to zackmdavis/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jan 17, 2021
In rust-lang#76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")! Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue rust-lang#76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable. The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR. Resolves rust-lang#78511.
m-ou-se
added a commit
to m-ou-se/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jan 18, 2021
don't suggest erroneous trailing comma after `..` In rust-lang#76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")! Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue rust-lang#76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable. The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR. Resolves rust-lang#78511. r? `@davidtwco` or `@estebank`
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Jan 19, 2021
don't suggest erroneous trailing comma after `..` In rust-lang#76612, suggestions were added for missing fields in patterns. However, the suggestions are being inserted just at the end of the last field in the pattern—before any trailing comma after the last field. This resulted in the "if you don't care about missing fields" suggestion to recommend code with a trailing comma after the field ellipsis (`..,`), which is actually not legal ("`..` must be at the end and cannot have a trailing comma")! Incidentally, the doc-comment on `error_unmentioned_fields` was using `you_cant_use_this_field` as an example field name (presumably copy-paste inherited from the description of Issue rust-lang#76077), but the present author found this confusing, because unmentioned fields aren't necessarily unusable. The suggested code in the diff this commit introduces to `destructuring-assignment/struct_destructure_fail.stderr` doesn't work, but it didn't work beforehand, either (because of the "found reserved identifier `_`" thing), so you can't really call it a regression; it could be fixed in a separate PR. Resolves rust-lang#78511. r? `@davidtwco` or `@estebank`
Thankfully, I landed here from a Web search and then found https://steveklabnik.com/writing/structure-literals-vs-constructors-in-rust as a way to counteract this. Hope this helps anyone else who comes across this. (Originally published at: https://v2.jacky.wtf/post/5bf98ed9-e8a1-46ca-9e26-245230276048) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
A-diagnostics
Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints
C-enhancement
Category: An issue proposing an enhancement or a PR with one.
D-newcomer-roadblock
Diagnostics: Confusing error or lint; hard to understand for new users.
T-compiler
Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
This error message could be more helpful:
It complains about lack of a private field in the initializer, but this problem can't be solved by adding the field. The implied solution is impossible, and will only lead to another dead-end error.
It would be better to explain in general that this struct can't be constructed from a literal syntax here, because it contains private fields. Bonus points for finding methods that return
Self
and suggesting them.related forum thread
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: