|
| 1 | +- Feature Name: none? |
| 2 | +- Start Date: 2015-02-18 |
| 3 | +- RFC PR: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1940 |
| 4 | +- Rust Issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43302 |
| 5 | + |
| 6 | +# Summary |
| 7 | + |
| 8 | +Support the `#[must_use]` attribute on arbitrary functions, to make |
| 9 | +the compiler lint when a call to such a function is ignored. Mark |
| 10 | +`PartialEq::{eq, ne}` `#[must_use]` as well as `PartialOrd::{lt, gt, le, ge}`. |
| 11 | + |
| 12 | +# Motivation |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +The `#[must_use]` lint is extremely useful for ensuring that values |
| 15 | +that are likely to be important are handled, even if by just |
| 16 | +explicitly ignoring them with, e.g., `let _ = ...;`. This expresses |
| 17 | +the programmers intention clearly, so that there is less confusion |
| 18 | +about whether, for example, ignoring the possible error from a `write` |
| 19 | +call is intentional or just an accidental oversight. |
| 20 | + |
| 21 | +Rust has got a lot of mileage out connecting the `#[must_use]` lint to |
| 22 | +specific types: types like `Result`, `MutexGuard` (any guard, in |
| 23 | +general) and the lazy iterator adapters have narrow enough use cases |
| 24 | +that the programmer usually wants to do something with them. These |
| 25 | +types are marked `#[must_use]` and the compiler will print an error if |
| 26 | +a semicolon ever throws away a value of that type: |
| 27 | + |
| 28 | +```rust |
| 29 | +fn returns_result() -> Result<(), ()> { |
| 30 | + Ok(()) |
| 31 | +} |
| 32 | + |
| 33 | +fn ignore_it() { |
| 34 | + returns_result(); |
| 35 | +} |
| 36 | +``` |
| 37 | + |
| 38 | +``` |
| 39 | +test.rs:6:5: 6:11 warning: unused result which must be used, #[warn(unused_must_use)] on by default |
| 40 | +test.rs:6 returns_result(); |
| 41 | + ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
| 42 | +``` |
| 43 | + |
| 44 | +One of the most important use-cases for this would be annotating `PartialEq::{eq, ne}` with `#[must_use]`. |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +There's a bug in Android where instead of `modem_reset_flag = 0;` the file affected has `modem_reset_flag == 0;`. |
| 47 | +Rust does not do better in this case. If you wrote `modem_reset_flag == false;` the compiler would be perfectly happy and wouldn't warn you. By marking `PartialEq` `#[must_use]` the compiler would complain about things like: |
| 48 | + |
| 49 | +``` |
| 50 | + modem_reset_flag == false; //warning |
| 51 | + modem_reset_flag = false; //ok |
| 52 | +``` |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +See further discussion in [#1812.](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/1812) |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +# Detailed design |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +If a semicolon discards the result of a function or method tagged with |
| 59 | +`#[must_use]`, the compiler will emit a lint message (under same lint |
| 60 | +as `#[must_use]` on types). An optional message `#[must_use = "..."]` |
| 61 | +will be printed, to provide the user with more guidance. |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +```rust |
| 64 | +#[must_use] |
| 65 | +fn foo() -> u8 { 0 } |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | + |
| 68 | +struct Bar; |
| 69 | + |
| 70 | +impl Bar { |
| 71 | + #[must_use = "maybe you meant something else"] |
| 72 | + fn baz(&self) -> Option<String> { None } |
| 73 | +} |
| 74 | + |
| 75 | +fn qux() { |
| 76 | + foo(); // warning: unused result that must be used |
| 77 | + Bar.baz(); // warning: unused result that must be used: maybe you meant something else |
| 78 | +} |
| 79 | +``` |
| 80 | + |
| 81 | +The primary motivation is to mark `PartialEq` functions as `#[must_use]`: |
| 82 | + |
| 83 | +``` |
| 84 | +#[must_use = "the result of testing for equality should not be discarded"] |
| 85 | +fn eq(&self, other: &Rhs) -> bool; |
| 86 | +``` |
| 87 | + |
| 88 | +The same thing for `ne`, and also `lt`, `gt`, `ge`, `le` in `PartialOrd`. There is no reason to discard the results of those operations. This means the `impl`s of these functions are not changed, it still issues a warning even for a custom `impl`. |
| 89 | + |
| 90 | +# Drawbacks |
| 91 | + |
| 92 | +This adds a little more complexity to the `#[must_use]` system, and |
| 93 | +may be misused by library authors (but then, many features may be |
| 94 | +misused). |
| 95 | + |
| 96 | +The rule stated doesn't cover every instance where a `#[must_use]` |
| 97 | +function is ignored, e.g. `(foo());` and `{ ...; foo() };` will not be |
| 98 | +picked up, even though it is passing the result through a piece of |
| 99 | +no-op syntax. This could be tweaked. Notably, the type-based rule doesn't |
| 100 | +have this problem, since that sort of "passing-through" causes the |
| 101 | +outer piece of syntax to be of the `#[must_use]` type, and so is |
| 102 | +considered for the lint itself. |
| 103 | + |
| 104 | +Marking functions `#[must_use]` is a breaking change in certain cases, |
| 105 | +e.g. if someone is ignoring their result and has the relevant lint (or |
| 106 | +warnings in general) set to be an error. This is a general problem of |
| 107 | +improving/expanding lints. |
| 108 | + |
| 109 | +# Alternatives |
| 110 | + |
| 111 | +- Adjust the rule to propagate `#[must_used]`ness through parentheses |
| 112 | + and blocks, so that `(foo());`, `{ foo() };` and even `if cond { |
| 113 | + foo() } else { 0 };` are linted. |
| 114 | + |
| 115 | +- Should we let particular `impl`s of a function have this attribute? Current design allows you to attach it inside the declaration of the trait. |
| 116 | + |
| 117 | +# Unresolved questions |
| 118 | + |
| 119 | +- Should this be feature gated? |
0 commit comments