Propose to exchange ranges only when it is safe to do so #14432
+320
−112
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
S-waiting-on-review
samueltardieu
force-pushed
the
push-vzpslusykwsk
branch
from
977ab28 to
5560c51
Compare
|
This could also be extended to situations where the ranges are used as an argument to a function/method call which accepts an
|
samueltardieu
force-pushed
the
push-vzpslusykwsk
branch
from
5560c51 to
184736f
Compare
|
Rebased on master |
|
Putting to draft, I want to double-check the lintcheck, it looks like we get some false negatives there. |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
samueltardieu
force-pushed
the
push-vzpslusykwsk
branch
from
184736f to
db80969
Compare
To avoid false positives, the `range_plus_one` and `range_minus_one` lints will restrict themselves to situations where the iterator types can be easily switched from exclusive to inclusive or vice-versa. This includes situations where the range is used as an iterator, or is used for indexing. Also, when the range is used as a function or method call argument and the parameter type is generic over traits implemented by both kind of ranges, the lint will trigger. On the other hand, assignments of the range to variables, including automatically typed ones or wildcards, will no longer trigger the lint. However, the cases where such an assignment would benefit from the lint are probably rare.
samueltardieu
force-pushed
the
push-vzpslusykwsk
branch
from
db80969 to
f532213
Compare
|
Much better. I added checking if the range to be modified is a method or function call argument, and if the target range would be suitable as well. @rustbot review |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? clippy |
|
I added a second commit to fix an issue with parentheses lacking from some suggestions identified in a comment made tonight in #9908. |
Those lints share the detection logic structure, but differed, probably because of an oversight, in lint emission: only one of them would take care of emitting parentheses around the suggestion if required. Factor the code into one function which checks for the right condition and emits the lint in an identical way.
samueltardieu
force-pushed
the
push-vzpslusykwsk
branch
from
443ee08 to
28b490f
Compare
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.
To avoid false positives, the
range_plus_oneandrange_minus_onelints will restrict themselves to situations where the iterator types can be easily switched from exclusive to inclusive or vice-versa. This includes situations where the range is used as an iterator, or is used for indexing.On the other hand, assignments of the range to variables, including automatically typed ones or wildcards, will no longer trigger the lint. However, the cases where such an assignment would benefit from the lint are probably rare.
In a second commit, the
range_plus_oneandrange_minus_onelogic are unified, in order to properly emit parentheses around the suggestion when needed.Fix #3307
Fix #9908
changelog: [
range_plus_one,range_minus_one]: restrict lint to cases where it is safe to switch the range typeEdit: as a consequence, this led to the removal of three
#[expect(clippy::range_plus_one)]in the Clippy sources to avoid those false positives.