Introduce `TypeVisitor::BreakTy`
Implements MCP rust-lang/compiler-team#383.
r? `@ghost`
cc `@lcnr` `@oli-obk`
~~Blocked on FCP in rust-lang/compiler-team#383.~~
Add a case to `lint_search_is_some` to handle searching strings
Fixes: #6010
This adds a lint which recommends using `contains()` instead of `find()` followed by `is_some()` on strings as suggested in #6010.
This was added as an additional case to
5af88e3c2d/clippy_lints/src/methods/mod.rs (L3037)
I would really appreciate any comments/suggestions for my code!
changelog: Added case to `lint_search_is_some` to handle searching strings
Make `_` an expression, to discard values in destructuring assignments
This is the third and final step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the third and final part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
With this PR, an underscore `_` is parsed as an expression but is allowed *only* on the left-hand side of a destructuring assignment. There it simply discards a value, similarly to the wildcard `_` in patterns. For instance,
```rust
(a, _) = (1, 2)
```
will simply assign 1 to `a` and discard the 2. Note that for consistency,
```
_ = foo
```
is also allowed and equivalent to just `foo`.
Thanks to ````@varkor```` who helped with the implementation, particularly around pre-expansion gating.
r? ````@petrochenkov````
add error_occured field to ConstQualifs,
fix#76064
I wasn't sure what `in_return_place` actually did and not sure why it returns `ConstQualifs` while it's sibling functions return `bool`. So I tried to make as minimal changes to the structure as possible. Please point out whether I have to refactor it or not.
r? `@oli-obk`
cc `@RalfJung`
Implement destructuring assignment for structs and slices
This is the second step towards implementing destructuring assignment (RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#2909, tracking issue: #71126). This PR is the second part of #71156, which was split up to allow for easier review.
Note that the first PR (#78748) is not merged yet, so it is included as the first commit in this one. I thought this would allow the review to start earlier because I have some time this weekend to respond to reviews. If ``@petrochenkov`` prefers to wait until the first PR is merged, I totally understand, of course.
This PR implements destructuring assignment for (tuple) structs and slices. In order to do this, the following *parser change* was necessary: struct expressions are not required to have a base expression, i.e. `Struct { a: 1, .. }` becomes legal (in order to act like a struct pattern).
Unfortunately, this PR slightly regresses the diagnostics implemented in #77283. However, it is only a missing help message in `src/test/ui/issues/issue-77218.rs`. Other instances of this diagnostic are not affected. Since I don't exactly understand how this help message works and how to fix it yet, I was hoping it's OK to regress this temporarily and fix it in a follow-up PR.
Thanks to ``@varkor`` who helped with the implementation, particularly around the struct rest changes.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
Do not collect tokens for doc comments
Doc comment is a single token and AST has all the information to re-create it precisely.
Doc comments are also responsible for majority of calls to `collect_tokens` (with `num_calls == 1` and `num_calls == 0`, cc https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/78736).
(I also moved token collection into `fn parse_attribute` to deduplicate code a bit.)
r? `@Aaron1011`
