core, std, proc_macro: inline format!() args (1) #114067
Closed
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
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
note to self; reapply this: #114019 (review) edit: done! |
matthiaskrgr
changed the title
matthiaskrgr
force-pushed
the
fmt_args_core_std_procmac
branch
from
0de23f5
to
292cc3a
Compare
library/core/src/str/mod.rs
Outdated
| s_trunc, | ||
| ellipsis | ||
| ); | ||
| assert!(begin <= end, "begin <= end ({begin} <= {end}) when slicing `{s_trunc}`{ellipsis}"); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This is much harder to parse, for me.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hm interesting, I find this much easier to read in one go, instead of having to jump back and forth between the {}s and the actual fmt arguments to figure out which one is the nth so it corresponds to the nth arg, etc.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's just the string "(begin <= end, "begin <= end ({begin} <= {end})" being here is confusing for me, it might actually be better if the identifier name was less repetitive with the messaging.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't have any objection to "`{s_trunc}`{ellipsis}" for instance.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
assert!((begin <= end), "begin ({begin}) <= end ({end}) when slicing..") does that read better for you?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@workingjubilee since we had actual tests for this message, I wonder if it is actually better to leave it untouched altogether, what do you think?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'll sleep on it but my first reaction is that many tests in the test suite deliberately test the current behavior without trying to harden against future changes, on the thesis that testing the current behavior is preferable to writing a test that which would pass silently in the face of behavioral changes that might render it nonfunctional, and that in general it's fine to diff a test if you change the actual inputs to the test's criteria.
|
Library. |
matthiaskrgr
force-pushed
the
fmt_args_core_std_procmac
branch
from
292cc3a
to
69dbf55
Compare
matthiaskrgr
force-pushed
the
fmt_args_core_std_procmac
branch
from
69dbf55
to
fe6c6bd
Compare
|
@rustbot ready |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
xD |
|
@rustbot author |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #112849) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
@matthiaskrgr any updates on this? thanks |
|
Closing this as inactive. Feel free to reöpen this pr or create a new pr if you get the time to work on this. Thanks |
Dylan-DPC
added
S-inactive
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.
No description provided.