Try to only suggest traits that can be implemented for method calls. #21675
+138
−7
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
huonw
force-pushed
the
less-false-positives
branch
from
3a89b6e to
78119ae
Compare
|
@bors r+ 78119ae |
|
⌛ Testing commit 78119ae with merge 8f50ce0... |
|
💔 Test failed - auto-mac-64-opt |
huonw
force-pushed
the
less-false-positives
branch
2 times, most recently
from
efbac8a to
4ec027f
Compare
|
@bors r=nikomatsakis 4ec027f |
|
⌛ Testing commit 4ec027f with merge bbcb2b8... |
|
💔 Test failed - auto-mac-64-opt |
That is, when offering suggestions for unresolved method calls, avoid
suggesting traits for which implementing the trait for the receiver type
either makes little sense (e.g. type errors, or sugared unboxed
closures), or violates coherence.
The latter is approximated by ensuring that at least one of `{receiver
type, trait}` is local. This isn't precisely correct due to
multidispatch, but the error messages one encounters in such situation
are useless more often than not; it is better to be conservative and
miss some cases, than have overly many false positives (e.g. writing
`some_slice.map(|x| ...)` uselessly suggested that one should implement
`IteratorExt` for `&[T]`, while the correct fix is to call `.iter()`).
Closes rust-lang#21420.
huonw
force-pushed
the
less-false-positives
branch
from
4ec027f to
e81ae40
Compare
|
@bors r=nikomatsakis e81a |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 3, 2015
That is, when offering suggestions for unresolved method calls, avoid
suggesting traits for which implementing the trait for the receiver type
either makes little sense (e.g. type errors, or sugared unboxed
closures), or violates coherence.
The latter is approximated by ensuring that at least one of `{receiver
type, trait}` is local. This isn't precisely correct due to
multidispatch, but the error messages one encounters in such situation
are useless more often than not; it is better to be conservative and
miss some cases, than have overly many false positives (e.g. writing
`some_slice.map(|x| ...)` uselessly suggested that one should implement
`IteratorExt` for `&[T]`, while the correct fix is to call `.iter()`).
Closes #21420.
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.
That is, when offering suggestions for unresolved method calls, avoid
suggesting traits for which implementing the trait for the receiver type
either makes little sense (e.g. type errors, or sugared unboxed
closures), or violates coherence.
The latter is approximated by ensuring that at least one of
{receiver type, trait}is local. This isn't precisely correct due tomultidispatch, but the error messages one encounters in such situation
are useless more often than not; it is better to be conservative and
miss some cases, than have overly many false positives (e.g. writing
some_slice.map(|x| ...)uselessly suggested that one should implementIteratorExtfor&[T], while the correct fix is to call.iter()).Closes #21420.