a couple more error explanations for posterity #43519
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
zackmdavis
force-pushed
the
long_diagnostics_ever_after
branch
from
c7fc4c0
to
e8cb201
Compare
GuillaumeGomez
requested changes
Jul 28, 2017
src/librustc_borrowck/diagnostics.rs
Outdated
| @@ -1132,6 +1132,22 @@ fn main() { | |||
| ``` | |||
| "##, | |||
|
|
|||
| E0595: r##" | |||
| Closures cannot mutate immutable captured variables. Erroneous code example: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please put "Erroneous code example:" on its own line.
src/librustc_typeck/diagnostics.rs
Outdated
| E0436: r##" | ||
| The functional record update syntax is only allowed for structs. (Struct-like | ||
| enum variants don't qualify.) | ||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please add "Erroneous code example:".
src/librustc_typeck/diagnostics.rs
Outdated
| @@ -3926,6 +3949,26 @@ See [RFC 1522] for more details. | |||
| [RFC 1522]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1522-conservative-impl-trait.md | |||
| "##, | |||
|
|
|||
| E0569: r##" | |||
| If an impl has a generic parameter with the `#[may_dangle]` attribute, then | |||
| that impl must be declared as an `unsafe impl. For example: | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please remove "For example:" and add "Erroneous code example:".
kennytm
reviewed
Jul 28, 2017
src/librustc_typeck/diagnostics.rs
Outdated
| days: (1, 15), annual_special: false | ||
| }, | ||
| c @ PublicationFrequency::SemiMonthly{ .. } => PublicationFrequency::SemiMonthly { | ||
| annual_special: true, ..c // error: functional record update syntax requires a struct |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This line is too long.
[00:11:18] error: description for error code E0436 contains a line longer than 80 characters.
[00:11:18] if you're inserting a long URL use the footnote style to bypass this check.
[00:11:18] --> /checkout/src/librustc_typeck/diagnostics.rs:13:1
[00:11:18] |
[00:11:18] 13 | / register_long_diagnostics! {
[00:11:18] 14 | |
[00:11:18] 15 | | E0023: r##"
[00:11:18] 16 | | A pattern used to match against an enum variant must provide a sub-pattern for
[00:11:18] ... |
[00:11:18] 4637 | |
[00:11:18] 4638 | | }
[00:11:18] | |_^
[00:11:18] |
[00:11:18] = note: this error originates in a macro outside of the current crate
shepmaster
added
the
S-waiting-on-author
This example focuses on struct-like enum variants, because it's not immediately obvious in what other context we can get E0436 alone, without any other, more serious, errors. (Triggering E0436 with a union also emits a separate "union expressions should have exactly one field" error.) (One might argue that we ought to accept the functional record update syntax for struct-like enums, but that is beyond the scope of this error-index-comprehensiveness commit.)
We want the error explanations to appear in numerical order so that they're easy to find. (Also, any other order would be arbitrary and thus not constitute a Schelling point.) Bizarrely, the extended information for E0569 was placed between E0244 and E0318 in librustc_typeck/diagnostics.rs (when the code was introduced in 9a649c3). This commit moves it to be between E0562 and E0570, where it belongs. (Also, at reviewer request, say "Erroneous code example", the standard verbiage that it has been decided that we say everywhere.)
zackmdavis
force-pushed
the
long_diagnostics_ever_after
branch
from
e8cb201
to
7dab981
Compare
|
(force-pushed) |
GuillaumeGomez
approved these changes
Jul 30, 2017
|
Ok, sounds good to me. Thanks! @bors: r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 7dab981 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 31, 2017
…laumeGomez a couple more error explanations for posterity E0436, E0595, and moving E0569 to where it belongs in the file rather than being bizarrely out of numerical order r? @GuillaumeGomez
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
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.
E0436, E0595, and moving E0569 to where it belongs in the file rather than being bizarrely out of numerical order
r? @GuillaumeGomez