-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.1k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Point error span at Some constructor argument when trait resolution fails #108557
Merged
bors
merged 3 commits into
rust-lang:master
from
Nathan-Fenner:nathanf/adjust-error-span-fix-Some
Mar 3, 2023
Merged
Changes from 1 commit
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I'm not sure I understand... Does
Some
's def id refer to theuse
statement?If this is the case, would this "fail" on something like the following?:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's not pointing to the
use
statement. It's pointing to a "constructor" definition which lives inside the "variant" definition.So if we have
then for all of
ExampleTuple::ExampleTupleVariant(q)
ExampleTupleVariant(q)
ExampleOtherTuple::ExampleTupleVariant(q)
ExampleDifferentTupleVariantName(q)
ExampleYetAnotherTupleVariantName(q)
by printing the relevant
DefId
s we see the same thing in each case:So going up once gets us to the variant and going up twice gets us to the type definition. I'm actually not sure how/why going up only once ever seemed to work before - this may have just been a miss since the first PR focused mostly on structs and tuples.
I've added a lot of new tests to cover this name resolving behavior.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ohhh, and for structures you get
expr_ctor_def_id ::: DefId(...::Struct::{constructor#0})
, so you only need to go one level up the parent chain. Makes sense, thanks for the explanation and adding a comment!