E.g. when there's a type mismatch on the return value of a function. To
fix this, we have to return the expected type as the type of the block
when there's a mismatch. That meant some IDE code that expected
otherwise had to be adapted, in particular the "add return type" assist.
For the "wrap in Ok/Some" quickfix, this sadly means it usually can't be applied
in all branches of an if expression at the same time anymore, because
there's a type mismatch for each branch that has the wrong type.
Adds a label / lifetime parameter to `ide_assists::handlers::extract_function::FlowKind::{Break, Continue}`, adds support for emitting labels to `syntax::ast::make::{expr_break, expr_continue}`, and implements the required machinery to let `extract_function` make use of them.
This does modify the external API of the `syntax` crate, but the changes there are simple, not used outside `ide_assists`, and, well, we should probably support emitting `break` and `continue` labels through `syntax` anyways, they're part of the language spec.
Closes#11413.
10532: Rename `descend_into_macros` Function per FIXME comment r=Veykril a=mirkoRainer
This renames `descend_into_macros` to `descend_into_macros_single` and `descend_into_macros_many` into `descend_into_macros`.
However, this does not touch a function in `SemanticsImpl` of same name.
I was prompted to do this per a FIXME comment, which is removed in this PR.
Co-authored-by: Mirko Rainer <mirkorainer@outlook.com>
This renames `descend_into_macros` to `descend_into_macros_single` and `descend_into_macros_many` into `descend_into_macros`.
However, this does not touch a function in `SemanticsImpl` of same name.
10440: Fix Clippy warnings and replace some `if let`s with `match` r=Veykril a=arzg
I decided to try fixing a bunch of Clippy warnings. I am aware of this project’s opinion of Clippy (I have read both [rust-lang/clippy#5537](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5537) and [rust-analyzer/rowan#57 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rowan/pull/57#discussion_r415676159)), so I totally understand if part of or the entirety of this PR is rejected. In particular, I can see how the semicolons and `if let` vs `match` commits provide comparatively little benefit when compared to the ensuing churn.
I tried to separate each kind of change into its own commit to make it easier to discard certain changes. I also only applied Clippy suggestions where I thought they provided a definite improvement to the code (apart from semicolons, which is IMO more of a formatting/consistency question than a linting question). In the end I accumulated a list of 28 Clippy lints I ignored entirely.
Sidenote: I should really have asked about this on Zulip before going through all 1,555 `if let`s in the codebase to decide which ones definitely look better as `match` :P
Co-authored-by: Aramis Razzaghipour <aramisnoah@gmail.com>
