[borrowck] Fix help on mutating &self in async fns #93221
Merged
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
the
T-compiler
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @jackh726 (or someone else) soon. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Previously, when rustc was provided an async function that tried to mutate through a shared reference to an implicit self (as shown in the ui test), rustc would suggest modifying the parameter signature to `&mut` + the fully qualified name of the ty (in the case of the repro `S`). If a user modified their code to match the suggestion, the compiler would not accept it. This commit modifies the suggestion so that when rustc is provided the ui test that is also attached in this commit, it suggests (correctly) `&mut self`. We try to be careful about distinguishing between implicit and explicit self annotations, since the latter seem to be handled correctly already. Fixes rust-lang#93093
alyssaverkade
commented
Jan 23, 2022
alyssaverkade
force-pushed
the
fix-93093
branch
from
05e5200 to
b885700
Compare
|
r? rust-lang/compiler |
|
@alyssaverkade in the future, please be patient. Requesting a new reviewer after only a few days generally makes things harder. |
|
Sorry! I had no idea what the norm was and I didn't want to overload you with more things to do |
wesleywiser
approved these changes
Feb 2, 2022
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit b885700 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 2, 2022
…askrgr Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#92528 (Make `Fingerprint::combine_commutative` associative) - rust-lang#93221 ([borrowck] Fix help on mutating &self in async fns) - rust-lang#93542 (Prevent lifetime elision in type alias) - rust-lang#93546 (Validate that values in switch int terminator are unique) - rust-lang#93571 (better suggestion for duplicated `where` clause) - rust-lang#93574 (don't suggest adding `let` due to bad assignment expressions inside of `while` loop) - rust-lang#93590 (More let_else adoptions) - rust-lang#93592 (Remove unused dep from rustc_arena) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
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.
Previously, when rustc was provided an async function that tried to
mutate through a shared reference to an implicit self (as shown in the
ui test), rustc would suggest modifying the parameter signature
to
&mut+ the fully qualified name of the ty (in the case of the reproS). If a user modified their code to match the suggestion, thecompiler would not accept it.
This commit modifies the suggestion so that when rustc is provided the
ui test that is also attached in this commit, it suggests (correctly)
&mut self. We try to be careful about distinguishing between implicitand explicit self annotations, since the latter seem to be handled
correctly already.
This is my first PR here so I'm pretty sure I probably missed something/could use better terminology. I also didn't try to make the match exhaustive since implicit self is the only real special case that I need to handle (that I'm aware of), and I'm pretty sure there's a cleaner way to do this so any advice would be greatly appreciated! (I'm also not terribly confident about how I wrote the ui tests)
here is your cc as requested @compiler-errors
This is an attempt to fix #93093