Generalized article_and_description #67742
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
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Centril
reviewed
Dec 31, 2019
tesuji
reviewed
Jan 2, 2020
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #67476) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
@matthewjasper Thanks! I have pushed my progress so far. Please let me know what you think. |
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Dylan-DPC-zz
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
@matthewjasper What should I do about EDIT: actually, that file already appears to be |
|
|
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #68725) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
mark-i-m
force-pushed
the
describe-it
branch
from
ddb84fc to
7a6361f
Compare
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
|
Tests passing now. The UI changes are all "function" -> "method". |
|
@rustbot modify labels: +S-waiting-on-review -S-waiting-on-author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
mark-i-m
commented
Feb 24, 2020
| @@ -7,7 +7,7 @@ LL | fn foo<'a>(x: &i32, y: &'a i32) -> &'a i32 { | |||
| | lifetime `'a` defined here | |||
| LL | | |||
| LL | if x > y { x } else { y } | |||
| | ^ function was supposed to return data with lifetime `'a` but it is returning data with lifetime `'1` | |||
| | ^ method was supposed to return data with lifetime `'a` but it is returning data with lifetime `'1` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm... actually, this is not a method... all the others appear correct.
And I also just realized, that I don't know why this change in UI happened? Any ideas?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
The change causing this is here: /~https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/67742/files#diff-5f616dd3631e07b51dd7c59f32ccfb76R433
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm... do you mean this one instead?
Also, this seems to imply that we are getting a DefKind::Method instead of a DefKind::Fn. Is this expected?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
DefKind::Method is for all associated functions. This is generally what Method means in the compiler, not that it should be leaking into error messages.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should rename DefKind::Method to DefKind::AssocFn so that it fits with the scheme used for AssocTy, AssocConst, etc. cc @petrochenkov @eddyb
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pretty sure we have an issue open about this, yeah.
|
r=me if you're happy with the current use of "method" in the diagnostics. |
|
@matthewjasper Thanks! This looks good to me. If there is an easy way to fix it, perhaps I can do that in a followup? |
|
I was thinking of changing what @bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 9434d6b has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-azure |
eddyb
reviewed
Feb 27, 2020
Comment on lines
+1520
to
+1521
| let kind = self.def_kind(def_id).unwrap(); | ||
| (kind.article(), kind.descr(def_id)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wish I saw this earlier - I think you should always call def_kind and only look at the def_key or other things if def_kind returned None.
The reason is that DefKind should eventually encompass every possible DefId, and the current situation is a transitional one (since DefKind was split out of name resolution, which only needs the current set of possible DefKinds).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't know if there is an issue for finishing DefKind, but feel free to work on that, or open one if there isn't one already.
Ideally def_key would be used in as few places as possible, as it's really the "name" of a definition more than anything else.
JohnTitor
added a commit
to JohnTitor/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2020
…sper Change "method" to "associated function" r? @matthewjasper cc @Centril @eddyb rust-lang#67742 I'm opening this mostly as a test to see what the diagnostic changes would be. It seems that this makes them somewhat more verbose, and I'm not sure it's worth it... The relevant changes are the last two commits (it is rebased on top of rust-lang#67742)
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 14, 2020
…sper Change "method" to "associated function" r? @matthewjasper cc @Centril @eddyb rust-lang#67742 I'm opening this mostly as a test to see what the diagnostic changes would be. It seems that this makes them somewhat more verbose, and I'm not sure it's worth it... The relevant changes are the last two commits (it is rebased on top of rust-lang#67742)
Dylan-DPC-zz
pushed a commit
to Dylan-DPC-zz/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 15, 2020
…sper Change "method" to "associated function" r? @matthewjasper cc @Centril @eddyb rust-lang#67742 I'm opening this mostly as a test to see what the diagnostic changes would be. It seems that this makes them somewhat more verbose, and I'm not sure it's worth it... The relevant changes are the last two commits (it is rebased on top of rust-lang#67742)
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.
r? @matthewjasper
The logic of finding the right word and article to print seems to be repeated elsewhere... this is an experimental method to unify this logic...