Specifying a revision in an extern mod directive can lead to duplication
#8673
Comments
|
Discussed a bit during the meeting: https://etherpad.mozilla.org/Meeting-weekly-2013-09-10 We didn't come to a solution; I think the plan is to just try it and see how bad it is. |
ghost
assigned 
|
Visiting for triage, nothing to add. |
|
It doesn't appear that this is relevant anymore with the removal of rustpkg. This is now in the scope of the new cargo. |
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this issue
Apr 21, 2022
Fix `same_functions_in_if_condition` FP fixes rust-lang#8139 changelog: Don't consider `Foo<{ SomeConstant }>` and `Foo<{ SomeOtherConstant }>` to be the same, even if the constants have the same value.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this issue
Mar 3, 2024
…, r=Veykril feature: Add `destructure_struct_binding` Adds an assist for destructuring a struct in a binding (rust-lang#8673). I saw that rust-lang#13997 has been abandoned for a while, so I thought I'd give it a go. ## Example ```rust let foo = Foo { bar: 1, baz: 2 }; let bar2 = foo.bar; let baz2 = foo.baz; let foo2 = foo; let fizz = Fizz(1, 2); let buzz = fizz.0; ``` becomes ```rust let Foo { bar, baz } = Foo { bar: 1, baz: 2 }; let bar2 = bar; let baz2 = baz; let foo2 = todo!(); let Fizz(_0, _1) = Fizz(1, 2); let buzz = _0; ``` More examples in the tests. ## What is included? - [x] Destructure record, tuple, and unit struct bindings - [x] Edit field usages - [x] Non-exhaustive structs in foreign crates and private fields get hidden behind `..` - [x] Nested bindings - [x] Carry over `mut` and `ref mut` in nested bindings to fields, i.e. `let Foo { ref mut bar } = ...` becomes `let Foo { bar: Bar { baz: ref mut baz } } = ...` - [x] Attempt to resolve collisions with other names in the scope - [x] If the binding is to a reference, field usages are dereferenced if required - [x] Use shorthand notation if possible ## Known limitations - `let foo = Foo { bar: 1 }; foo;` currently results in `let Foo { bar } = Foo { bar: 1 }; todo!();` instead of reassembling the struct. This requires user intervention. - Unused fields are not currently omitted. I thought that this is more ergonomic, as there already is a quick fix action for adding `: _` to unused field patterns.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
@metajack pointed out that if we want to move away from using submodules, to using directives like
extern mod foo = http://whatever/a/b/c#xxxxxx, where xxxxxx is a revision ID, the particular known-good revision being used has to appear in multiple locations in the code. That's suboptimal.For rustpkg, we should think about whether there's a way to store all of the "known-good versions" for a project's dependencies in one place.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: