check_match: refactor + improve non-exhaustive diagnostics for default binding modes #64271
Conversation
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
| LL | | None, | ||
| LL | | | ||
| LL | | } | ||
| | |_- `Opt` defined here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
E0005 seem to not be pointing at the uncovered variants. This should also have at least a note about if let. I'll take a look at the code tomorrow.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I wondered if that was by-design or not. If not, this would actually simplify the code and I think I know how to fix it. There's a good argument for why it should be by-design without full or-patterns but we will have those on nightly soon so that argument is probably invalid now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be ok to unify both, maybe with some extra help about how to write or-patterns (only if all variants have the currently covered field types), otherwise talk about if let. But this could be done as follow up work.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I've unified them a bit but I'd like to punt on the extra help or referring to if let. A follow up issue might be good to file however.
| LL | | None, | ||
| LL | | | ||
| LL | | } | ||
| | |_- `Opt` defined here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I think it should be ok to unify both, maybe with some extra help about how to write or-patterns (only if all variants have the currently covered field types), otherwise talk about if let. But this could be done as follow up work.
Centril
force-pushed
the
non-exhaustive-peel-refs
branch
from
335b855
to
eeca6ee
Compare
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 20a2605 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
check_match: refactor + improve non-exhaustive diagnostics for default binding modes
Refactor `check_match` a bit with more code-reuse and improve the diagnostics for a non-exhaustive pattern match by peeling off any references from the scrutinee type so that the "defined here" label is added in more cases. For example:
```rust
error[E0004]: non-exhaustive patterns: `&mut &B` not covered
--> foo.rs:4:11
|
1 | enum E { A, B }
| ---------------
| | |
| | not covered
| `E` defined here
...
4 | match x {
| ^ pattern `&mut &B` not covered
|
= help: ensure that all possible cases are being handled, possibly by adding wildcards or more match arms
```
Moreover, wrt. "defined here", we give irrefutable pattern matching (i.e. in `let`, `for`, and `fn` parameters) a more consistent treatment in line with `match`.
r? @estebank
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
Tested on commit rust-lang/rust@f0b58fc. Direct link to PR: <rust-lang/rust#64271> 🎉 rls on linux: test-fail → test-pass (cc @Xanewok, @rust-lang/infra).
Refactor
check_matcha bit with more code-reuse and improve the diagnostics for a non-exhaustive pattern match by peeling off any references from the scrutinee type so that the "defined here" label is added in more cases. For example:Moreover, wrt. "defined here", we give irrefutable pattern matching (i.e. in
let,for, andfnparameters) a more consistent treatment in line withmatch.r? @estebank