Add explanation for E0210 and revise E0117. #26982
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
|
r? @pcwalton (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
|
|
||
| where `P1, ..., Pm` are the type parameters of the `impl` and `T0, ..., Tn` | ||
| are types. One of the types `T0, ..., Tn` must be a local type (this is another | ||
| orphan rule, see the explanation for E0117). Let `i` be the smallest integer |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
There's a spurious tidy failure due to the use of "E0117" in this line. I'm looking into how fixable it is
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2015
Currently errorck yields bogus `duplicate error code` messages when an error code occurs inside of a long diagnostic message (see #26982), because errorck just goes line by line checking for error codes and recording them all. A simplistic approach to fixing this is just to detect the beginning of a long diagnostic raw string literal (`r##"`) and skip lines until the end of the raw string literal is encountered. I'm not completely confident in this approach, but I think a more robust approach would be more complicated and I wanted to get feedback before pursuing that.
|
No r+ here ? |
|
r? @Manishearth |
|
@bors r+ rollup Thanks! |
|
📌 Commit 2439824 has been approved by |
|
@nham: Can you update the spreadsheet (or once it'll be merged ? :p) please ? |
|
@GuillaumeGomez sure will. |
|
⌛ Testing commit 2439824 with merge a97c1c4... |
Manishearth
added a commit
to Manishearth/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 1, 2015
part of rust-lang#24407 I'm not sure whether I should be trying to explain the general rule in the E0210 explanation or just point people to the RFC. However, if we go with the latter option I think that the RFC will need to be revised slightly, since it is not quite as gentle as I would like. Also, the link to RFC 1023 is not the correct one (it should be https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1023-rebalancing-coherence.md), but the correct one is too long. I'm aware of @michaelsproul's PR rust-lang#26290 from awhile back, but it doesn't seem to be working. Has there not been a new snapshot yet?
|
⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request. |
|
⌛ Testing commit 2439824 with merge 6471640... |
|
⛄ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request. |
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.
part of #24407
I'm not sure whether I should be trying to explain the general rule in the E0210 explanation or just point people to the RFC. However, if we go with the latter option I think that the RFC will need to be revised slightly, since it is not quite as gentle as I would like.
Also, the link to RFC 1023 is not the correct one (it should be https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1023-rebalancing-coherence.md), but the correct one is too long. I'm aware of @michaelsproul's PR #26290 from awhile back, but it doesn't seem to be working. Has there not been a new snapshot yet?