feat(fix): ignore `todo!` and `unimplemented!` in `if_same_then_else`
close: #8836
take over: #8853
This PR adds check `todo!` and `unimplemented!` in if_same_then_else.
( I thought `unimplemented` should not be checked as well as todo!.)
Thank you in advance.
changelog: ignore todo! and unimplemented! in if_same_then_else
r? `@Jarcho`
Use `RefCell` in `needless_return` tests
changelog: none
The stdio locks no longer fail to compile if the `return` is removed due to them now being `'static` (#9008)
once cell renamings
This PR does the renamings proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/74465#issuecomment-1153703128
- Move/rename `lazy::{OnceCell, Lazy}` to `cell::{OnceCell, LazyCell}`
- Move/rename `lazy::{SyncOnceCell, SyncLazy}` to `sync::{OnceLock, LazyLock}`
(I used `Lazy...` instead of `...Lazy` as it seems to be more consistent, easier to pronounce, etc)
```@rustbot``` label +T-libs-api -T-libs
feat(lint): add default_iter_empty
close#8915
This PR adds `default_iter_empty` lint.
This lint checks `std::iter::Empty::default()` and replace with `std::iter::empty()`.
Thank you in advance.
---
changelog: add `default_instead_of_iter_empty` lint.
Update description in clippy_lints/src/default_iter_empty.rs
Co-authored-by: Fridtjof Stoldt <xFrednet@gmail.com>
Update clippy_lints/src/default_iter_empty.rs
Co-authored-by: Alex Macleod <alex@macleod.io>
Update clippy_lints/src/default_iter_empty.rs
Co-authored-by: Alex Macleod <alex@macleod.io>
renamed default_iter_empty to default_instead_of_iter_empty
Avoid duplicate messages
add tests for regression
rewrite 'Why is this bad?'
cargo dev fmt
delete default_iter_empty lint in renamed_lint.rs
rewrite a message in the suggestion
cargo dev update_lints --check
Hide irrelevant lines in suggestions to allow for suggestions that are far from each other to be shown
This is an attempt to fix suggestions one part of which is 6 lines or more far from the first. I've noticed "the problem" (of not showing some parts of the suggestion) here: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97759#discussion_r889689230.
I'm not sure about the implementation (this big closure is just bad and makes already complicated code even more so), but I want to at least discuss the result.
Here is an example of how this changes the output:
Before:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
...
```
After:
```text
help: consider enclosing expression in a block
|
3 ~ 'l: { match () { () => break 'l,
4 |
...
31|
32~ } };
|
```
r? `@estebank`
`@rustbot` label +A-diagnostics +A-suggestion-diagnostics
Make `ExprKind::Closure` a struct variant.
Simple refactor since we both need it to introduce additional fields in `ExprKind::Closure`.
r? ``@Aaron1011``
