Skip to content

Commit

Permalink
remove rustdoc warnings
Browse files Browse the repository at this point in the history
  • Loading branch information
@tshepang
tshepang committed Jun 30, 2020
1 parent a1528c4 commit f3645ca
Showing 1 changed file with 99 additions and 98 deletions.
197 changes: 99 additions & 98 deletions src/librustc_mir_build/hair/pattern/_match.rs
View file
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -4,8 +4,8 @@
//! This file includes the logic for exhaustiveness and usefulness checking for
//! pattern-matching. Specifically, given a list of patterns for a type, we can
//! tell whether:
//! (a) the patterns cover every possible constructor for the type [exhaustiveness]
//! (b) each pattern is necessary [usefulness]
//! (a) the patterns cover every possible constructor for the type (exhaustiveness)
//! (b) each pattern is necessary (usefulness)
//!
//! The algorithm implemented here is a modified version of the one described in:
//! http://moscova.inria.fr/~maranget/papers/warn/index.html
Expand Down Expand Up @@ -101,53 +101,54 @@
//! To match the paper, the top of the stack is at the beginning / on the left.
//!
//! There are two important operations on pattern-stacks necessary to understand the algorithm:
//! 1. We can pop a given constructor off the top of a stack. This operation is called
//! `specialize`, and is denoted `S(c, p)` where `c` is a constructor (like `Some` or
//! `None`) and `p` a pattern-stack.
//! If the pattern on top of the stack can cover `c`, this removes the constructor and
//! pushes its arguments onto the stack. It also expands OR-patterns into distinct patterns.
//! Otherwise the pattern-stack is discarded.
//! This essentially filters those pattern-stacks whose top covers the constructor `c` and
//! discards the others.
//!
//! For example, the first pattern above initially gives a stack `[(Some(true), _)]`. If we
//! pop the tuple constructor, we are left with `[Some(true), _]`, and if we then pop the
//! `Some` constructor we get `[true, _]`. If we had popped `None` instead, we would get
//! nothing back.
//! 1. We can pop a given constructor off the top of a stack. This operation is called
//! `specialize`, and is denoted `S(c, p)` where `c` is a constructor (like `Some` or
//! `None`) and `p` a pattern-stack.
//! If the pattern on top of the stack can cover `c`, this removes the constructor and
//! pushes its arguments onto the stack. It also expands OR-patterns into distinct patterns.
//! Otherwise the pattern-stack is discarded.
//! This essentially filters those pattern-stacks whose top covers the constructor `c` and
//! discards the others.
//!
//! This returns zero or more new pattern-stacks, as follows. We look at the pattern `p_1`
//! on top of the stack, and we have four cases:
//! 1.1. `p_1 = c(r_1, .., r_a)`, i.e. the top of the stack has constructor `c`. We
//! push onto the stack the arguments of this constructor, and return the result:
//! r_1, .., r_a, p_2, .., p_n
//! 1.2. `p_1 = c'(r_1, .., r_a')` where `c ≠ c'`. We discard the current stack and
//! return nothing.
//! 1.3. `p_1 = _`. We push onto the stack as many wildcards as the constructor `c` has
//! arguments (its arity), and return the resulting stack:
//! _, .., _, p_2, .., p_n
//! 1.4. `p_1 = r_1 | r_2`. We expand the OR-pattern and then recurse on each resulting
//! stack:
//! S(c, (r_1, p_2, .., p_n))
//! S(c, (r_2, p_2, .., p_n))
//! For example, the first pattern above initially gives a stack `[(Some(true), _)]`. If we
//! pop the tuple constructor, we are left with `[Some(true), _]`, and if we then pop the
//! `Some` constructor we get `[true, _]`. If we had popped `None` instead, we would get
//! nothing back.
//!
//! 2. We can pop a wildcard off the top of the stack. This is called `D(p)`, where `p` is
//! a pattern-stack.
//! This is used when we know there are missing constructor cases, but there might be
//! existing wildcard patterns, so to check the usefulness of the matrix, we have to check
//! all its *other* components.
//! This returns zero or more new pattern-stacks, as follows. We look at the pattern `p_1`
//! on top of the stack, and we have four cases:
//! 1.1. `p_1 = c(r_1, .., r_a)`, i.e. the top of the stack has constructor `c`. We
//! push onto the stack the arguments of this constructor, and return the result:
//! r_1, .., r_a, p_2, .., p_n
//! 1.2. `p_1 = c'(r_1, .., r_a')` where `c ≠ c'`. We discard the current stack and
//! return nothing.
//! 1.3. `p_1 = _`. We push onto the stack as many wildcards as the constructor `c` has
//! arguments (its arity), and return the resulting stack:
//! _, .., _, p_2, .., p_n
//! 1.4. `p_1 = r_1 | r_2`. We expand the OR-pattern and then recurse on each resulting
//! stack:
//! S(c, (r_1, p_2, .., p_n))
//! S(c, (r_2, p_2, .., p_n))
//!
//! It is computed as follows. We look at the pattern `p_1` on top of the stack,
//! and we have three cases:
//! 1.1. `p_1 = c(r_1, .., r_a)`. We discard the current stack and return nothing.
//! 1.2. `p_1 = _`. We return the rest of the stack:
//! p_2, .., p_n
//! 1.3. `p_1 = r_1 | r_2`. We expand the OR-pattern and then recurse on each resulting
//! stack.
//! D((r_1, p_2, .., p_n))
//! D((r_2, p_2, .., p_n))
//! 2. We can pop a wildcard off the top of the stack. This is called `D(p)`, where `p` is
//! a pattern-stack.
//! This is used when we know there are missing constructor cases, but there might be
//! existing wildcard patterns, so to check the usefulness of the matrix, we have to check
//! all its *other* components.
//!
//! Note that the OR-patterns are not always used directly in Rust, but are used to derive the
//! exhaustive integer matching rules, so they're written here for posterity.
//! It is computed as follows. We look at the pattern `p_1` on top of the stack,
//! and we have three cases:
//! 1.1. `p_1 = c(r_1, .., r_a)`. We discard the current stack and return nothing.
//! 1.2. `p_1 = _`. We return the rest of the stack:
//! p_2, .., p_n
//! 1.3. `p_1 = r_1 | r_2`. We expand the OR-pattern and then recurse on each resulting
//! stack.
//! D((r_1, p_2, .., p_n))
//! D((r_2, p_2, .., p_n))
//!
//! Note that the OR-patterns are not always used directly in Rust, but are used to derive the
//! exhaustive integer matching rules, so they're written here for posterity.
//!
//! Both those operations extend straightforwardly to a list or pattern-stacks, i.e. a matrix, by
//! working row-by-row. Popping a constructor ends up keeping only the matrix rows that start with
Expand All @@ -168,66 +169,66 @@
//!
//! Inductive step. (`n > 0`, i.e., whether there's at least one column
//! [which may then be expanded into further columns later])
//! We're going to match on the top of the new pattern-stack, `p_1`.
//! - If `p_1 == c(r_1, .., r_a)`, i.e. we have a constructor pattern.
//! Then, the usefulness of `p_1` can be reduced to whether it is useful when
//! we ignore all the patterns in the first column of `P` that involve other constructors.
//! This is where `S(c, P)` comes in:
//! `U(P, p) := U(S(c, P), S(c, p))`
//! This special case is handled in `is_useful_specialized`.
//! We're going to match on the top of the new pattern-stack, `p_1`.
//! - If `p_1 == c(r_1, .., r_a)`, i.e. we have a constructor pattern.
//! Then, the usefulness of `p_1` can be reduced to whether it is useful when
//! we ignore all the patterns in the first column of `P` that involve other constructors.
//! This is where `S(c, P)` comes in:
//! `U(P, p) := U(S(c, P), S(c, p))`
//! This special case is handled in `is_useful_specialized`.
//!
//! For example, if `P` is:
//! [
//! [Some(true), _],
//! [None, 0],
//! ]
//! and `p` is [Some(false), 0], then we don't care about row 2 since we know `p` only
//! matches values that row 2 doesn't. For row 1 however, we need to dig into the
//! arguments of `Some` to know whether some new value is covered. So we compute
//! `U([[true, _]], [false, 0])`.
//! For example, if `P` is:
//! [
//! [Some(true), _],
//! [None, 0],
//! ]
//! and `p` is [Some(false), 0], then we don't care about row 2 since we know `p` only
//! matches values that row 2 doesn't. For row 1 however, we need to dig into the
//! arguments of `Some` to know whether some new value is covered. So we compute
//! `U([[true, _]], [false, 0])`.
//!
//! - If `p_1 == _`, then we look at the list of constructors that appear in the first
//! component of the rows of `P`:
//! + If there are some constructors that aren't present, then we might think that the
//! wildcard `_` is useful, since it covers those constructors that weren't covered
//! before.
//! That's almost correct, but only works if there were no wildcards in those first
//! components. So we need to check that `p` is useful with respect to the rows that
//! start with a wildcard, if there are any. This is where `D` comes in:
//! `U(P, p) := U(D(P), D(p))`
//! - If `p_1 == _`, then we look at the list of constructors that appear in the first
//! component of the rows of `P`:
//! + If there are some constructors that aren't present, then we might think that the
//! wildcard `_` is useful, since it covers those constructors that weren't covered
//! before.
//! That's almost correct, but only works if there were no wildcards in those first
//! components. So we need to check that `p` is useful with respect to the rows that
//! start with a wildcard, if there are any. This is where `D` comes in:
//! `U(P, p) := U(D(P), D(p))`
//!
//! For example, if `P` is:
//! [
//! [_, true, _],
//! [None, false, 1],
//! ]
//! and `p` is [_, false, _], the `Some` constructor doesn't appear in `P`. So if we
//! only had row 2, we'd know that `p` is useful. However row 1 starts with a
//! wildcard, so we need to check whether `U([[true, _]], [false, 1])`.
//! For example, if `P` is:
//! [
//! [_, true, _],
//! [None, false, 1],
//! ]
//! and `p` is [_, false, _], the `Some` constructor doesn't appear in `P`. So if we
//! only had row 2, we'd know that `p` is useful. However row 1 starts with a
//! wildcard, so we need to check whether `U([[true, _]], [false, 1])`.
//!
//! + Otherwise, all possible constructors (for the relevant type) are present. In this
//! case we must check whether the wildcard pattern covers any unmatched value. For
//! that, we can think of the `_` pattern as a big OR-pattern that covers all
//! possible constructors. For `Option`, that would mean `_ = None | Some(_)` for
//! example. The wildcard pattern is useful in this case if it is useful when
//! specialized to one of the possible constructors. So we compute:
//! `U(P, p) := ∃(k ϵ constructors) U(S(k, P), S(k, p))`
//! + Otherwise, all possible constructors (for the relevant type) are present. In this
//! case we must check whether the wildcard pattern covers any unmatched value. For
//! that, we can think of the `_` pattern as a big OR-pattern that covers all
//! possible constructors. For `Option`, that would mean `_ = None | Some(_)` for
//! example. The wildcard pattern is useful in this case if it is useful when
//! specialized to one of the possible constructors. So we compute:
//! `U(P, p) := ∃(k ϵ constructors) U(S(k, P), S(k, p))`
//!
//! For example, if `P` is:
//! [
//! [Some(true), _],
//! [None, false],
//! ]
//! and `p` is [_, false], both `None` and `Some` constructors appear in the first
//! components of `P`. We will therefore try popping both constructors in turn: we
//! compute U([[true, _]], [_, false]) for the `Some` constructor, and U([[false]],
//! [false]) for the `None` constructor. The first case returns true, so we know that
//! `p` is useful for `P`. Indeed, it matches `[Some(false), _]` that wasn't matched
//! before.
//! For example, if `P` is:
//! [
//! [Some(true), _],
//! [None, false],
//! ]
//! and `p` is [_, false], both `None` and `Some` constructors appear in the first
//! components of `P`. We will therefore try popping both constructors in turn: we
//! compute `U([[true, _]], [_, false])` for the `Some` constructor, and `U([[false]],
//! [false])` for the `None` constructor. The first case returns true, so we know that
//! `p` is useful for `P`. Indeed, it matches `[Some(false), _]` that wasn't matched
//! before.
//!
//! - If `p_1 == r_1 | r_2`, then the usefulness depends on each `r_i` separately:
//! `U(P, p) := U(P, (r_1, p_2, .., p_n))
//! || U(P, (r_2, p_2, .., p_n))`
//! - If `p_1 == r_1 | r_2`, then the usefulness depends on each `r_i` separately:
//! `U(P, p) := U(P, (r_1, p_2, .., p_n))
//! || U(P, (r_2, p_2, .., p_n))`
//!
//! Modifications to the algorithm
//! ------------------------------
Expand Down

0 comments on commit f3645ca

Please sign in to comment.