run rustfmt on librustc_typeck/check/method folder #36736

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T03:32:43Z

No description provided.

rust-highfive · 2016-09-26T03:32:55Z

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T04:39:37Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/mod.rs

-                                                  self.body_id,
-                                                  poly_trait_ref.to_predicate());
+        let obligation =
+            traits::Obligation::misc(span, self.body_id, poly_trait_ref.to_predicate());


This is interesting. Why did the function call take a separate line? Previous formatting looks good to me. @nrc

rust-lang/rustfmt#1171

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T04:40:53Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/mod.rs

-                                                                    &method_ty.fty.sig).0;
+        let fn_sig =
+            self.replace_late_bound_regions_with_fresh_var(span, infer::FnCall, &method_ty.fty.sig)
+                .0;


this is ugly

rust-lang/rustfmt#1171

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T04:42:59Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/probe.rs

-                                                 steps,
-                                                 opt_simplified_steps);
+            let mut probe_cx =
+                ProbeContext::new(self, span, mode, item_name, steps, opt_simplified_steps);


rust-lang/rustfmt#1171

This doesn't seem too bad to me, arguably it is better since using less vertical space and the call all on one line is not too hard to read.

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T04:43:36Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/probe.rs

-                                                   new_trait_ref.self_ty(),
-                                                   new_trait_ref.substs);
+            let xform_self_ty =
+                this.xform_self_ty(&item, new_trait_ref.self_ty(), new_trait_ref.substs);


rust-lang/rustfmt#1171

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T04:48:04Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/probe.rs

@@ -1218,8 +1205,10 @@ impl<'a, 'gcx, 'tcx> ProbeContext<'a, 'gcx, 'tcx> {
        // are given do not include type/lifetime parameters for the
        // method yet. So create fresh variables here for those too,
        // if there are any.
-        assert_eq!(substs.types().count(), method.generics.parent_types as usize);
-        assert_eq!(substs.regions().count(), method.generics.parent_regions as usize);
+        assert_eq!(substs.types().count(),


why did rustfmt convert this? These expressions are happily fit on a single line.

rust-lang/rustfmt#1170

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T04:50:16Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/suggest.rs

+                                                            .impl_trait_ref(impl_did)
+                                                            .unwrap()
+                                                            .def_id,
+


rustfmt didnot remove empty line between parameters in a function call @nrc

rust-lang/rustfmt#1172

nrc · 2016-09-26T19:09:01Z

@srinivasreddy could you file rustfmt issues for these things please?

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T19:52:40Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/mod.rs

@@ -135,7 +136,12 @@ impl<'a, 'gcx, 'tcx> FnCtxt<'a, 'gcx, 'tcx> {
            self.tcx.used_trait_imports.borrow_mut().insert(import_id);
        }

-        Ok(self.confirm_method(span, self_expr, call_expr, self_ty, pick, supplied_method_types))
+        Ok(self.confirm_method(span,


rust-lang/rustfmt#1170

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-26T19:53:44Z

@nrc Done. Thanks.

nrc · 2016-09-26T21:33:02Z

Awesome, thank you!

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-27T14:47:22Z

@nrc Shall we roll-up?

nrc · 2016-09-29T02:14:27Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/confirm.rs

-    ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
-    // ADJUSTMENTS
+    /// ////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
+    /// ADJUSTMENTS


Could you manually fixup these changes to comments please?

nrc · 2016-09-29T02:17:45Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/probe.rs

+        //! *reborrow* it to a shorter lifetime. This allows us to
+        //! transparently pass `&mut` pointers, in particular, without
+        //! consuming them for their entire lifetime.
+        //!


Could you remove the dangling sigil please

nrc · 2016-09-29T02:19:04Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/suggest.rs

+                                  "it"
+                              } else {
+                                  "one of them"
+                              });


These should stay on a line each I think

nrc · 2016-09-29T02:19:16Z

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/suggest.rs

+                              } else {
+                                  "one of them"
+                              },
+                              name = item_name);


nrc · 2016-09-29T02:19:56Z

Thanks for doing this! Could you manually fixup the areas where there are issues please?

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-29T19:38:54Z

@nrc Done.

srinivasreddy · 2016-09-30T09:31:36Z

r? @nrc

bors · 2016-10-01T20:54:03Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #36885) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

nrc · 2016-10-02T23:35:31Z

looks good, r=me, but needs a rebase

srinivasreddy · 2016-10-03T04:08:27Z

@nrc Done

nrc · 2016-10-03T05:10:36Z

@bors: r+

bors · 2016-10-03T05:10:37Z

📌 Commit 9e22f39 has been approved by nrc

bors · 2016-10-03T06:47:41Z

⌛ Testing commit 9e22f39 with merge 0d77bd2...

bors · 2016-10-03T08:30:31Z

💔 Test failed - auto-mac-64-opt

nrc · 2016-10-03T19:30:13Z

@srinivasreddy test fail looks real, perhaps a rebasing error?

srinivasreddy · 2016-10-04T06:29:51Z

@nrc Fixed it

nrc · 2016-10-05T01:29:52Z

@bors: r+

bors · 2016-10-05T01:29:54Z

📌 Commit 5be0acc has been approved by nrc

bors · 2016-10-05T02:56:38Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #36814) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

srinivasreddy · 2016-10-05T04:36:58Z

@nrc pls do it again.

nrc · 2016-10-05T05:59:42Z

@bors: r+

bors · 2016-10-05T05:59:43Z

📌 Commit dcb6b15 has been approved by nrc

bors · 2016-10-05T12:53:02Z

⌛ Testing commit dcb6b15 with merge fd1ea13...

run rustfmt on librustc_typeck/check/method folder

bors · 2016-10-05T16:14:00Z

rust-highfive assigned Aatch Sep 26, 2016

srinivasreddy commented Sep 26, 2016

View reviewed changes

nrc reviewed Sep 29, 2016

View reviewed changes

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/suggest.rs

"it"

} else {

"one of them"

});

Copy link

Member

nrc Sep 29, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

These should stay on a line each I think

nrc reviewed Sep 29, 2016

View reviewed changes

src/librustc_typeck/check/method/suggest.rs

} else {

"one of them"

},

name = item_name);

Copy link

Member

nrc Sep 29, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

same

rust-highfive assigned nrc and unassigned Aatch Sep 30, 2016

run rustfmt on librustc_typeck/check/method folder

dcb6b15

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Oct 5, 2016

Auto merge of #36736 - srinivasreddy:method, r=nrc

fd1ea13

run rustfmt on librustc_typeck/check/method folder

bors merged commit dcb6b15 into rust-lang:master Oct 5, 2016

srinivasreddy deleted the method branch October 5, 2016 16:34

run rustfmt on librustc_typeck/check/method folder #36736

run rustfmt on librustc_typeck/check/method folder #36736

Conversation

srinivasreddy commented Sep 26, 2016

rust-highfive commented Sep 26, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

srinivasreddy Sep 26, 2016 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nrc commented Sep 26, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

srinivasreddy commented Sep 26, 2016

nrc commented Sep 26, 2016

srinivasreddy commented Sep 27, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

nrc commented Sep 29, 2016

srinivasreddy commented Sep 29, 2016

srinivasreddy commented Sep 30, 2016

bors commented Oct 1, 2016

nrc commented Oct 2, 2016

srinivasreddy commented Oct 3, 2016

nrc commented Oct 3, 2016

bors commented Oct 3, 2016

bors commented Oct 3, 2016

bors commented Oct 3, 2016

nrc commented Oct 3, 2016

srinivasreddy commented Oct 4, 2016 • edited Loading

nrc commented Oct 5, 2016

bors commented Oct 5, 2016

bors commented Oct 5, 2016

srinivasreddy commented Oct 5, 2016

nrc commented Oct 5, 2016

bors commented Oct 5, 2016

bors commented Oct 5, 2016

bors commented Oct 5, 2016

srinivasreddy Sep 26, 2016 •

edited

Loading

srinivasreddy commented Oct 4, 2016 •

edited

Loading