back out bogus Ok-wrapping suggestion on ? arm type mismatch#55423
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom Oct 29, 2018
Merged
back out bogus Ok-wrapping suggestion on ? arm type mismatch#55423bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Ok-wrapping suggestion on ? arm type mismatch#55423bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
This suggestion was introduced in rust-lang#51938 / 6cc78bf (while introducing different language for type errors coming from `?` rather than a `match`), but it has a lot of false-positives (as repeatedly reported in Issues rust-lang#52537, rust-lang#52598, rust-lang#54578, rust-lang#55336), and incorrect suggestions carry more badness than marginal good suggestions do goodness. Just get rid of it (unless and until someone figures out how to do it correctly). Resolves rust-lang#52537, resolves rust-lang#54578.
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
Author
|
I could see a case for beta-backporting if we think that 1.31 will get a lot of new users coming to check out the edition, and we don't want to make a bad impression with a bad suggestion, but maybe backports should only be for higher-priority edition-critical things? On the other hand, this is a very low-risk patch (straightforwardly removes an |
zackmdavis
added
the
beta-nominated
Contributor
|
I'm a bit sad about seeing the suggestion going away entirely. Did you find it impossible to restrict the suggestion any further instead of removing it? |
Contributor
Author
Not impossible, just not a prioritized use of my time right now. (Whereas getting rid of the false positive is a priority, because it's been independently reported four times.) I've now filed a separate issue so that the opportunity isn't forgotten: #55429 |
Contributor
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit b754615 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Mark-Simulacrum
added
the
beta-accepted
Member
|
Accepting for beta promotion. I agree that a faulty diagnostic isn't good to ship, and the edition only reinforces that. Code changes are minimal enough that I feel comfortable with a backport. |
emilyalbini
removed
the
beta-nominated
emilyalbini
added a commit
to emilyalbini/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2018
…ng_suggestion, r=estebank back out bogus `Ok`-wrapping suggestion on `?` arm type mismatch This suggestion was introduced in rust-lang#51938 / 6cc78bf (while introducing different language for type errors coming from `?` rather than a `match`), but it has a lot of false-positives, and incorrect suggestions carry more badness than marginal good suggestions do goodness. I regret not doing this earlier. 😞 Resolves rust-lang#52537, resolves rust-lang#54578. r? @estebank
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2018
Rollup of 9 pull requests Successful merges: - #54965 (update tcp stream documentation) - #55269 (fix typos in various places) - #55384 (Avoid unnecessary allocations in `float_lit` and `integer_lit`.) - #55423 (back out bogus `Ok`-wrapping suggestion on `?` arm type mismatch) - #55426 (Make a bunch of trivial methods of NonNull be `#[inline]`) - #55438 (Avoid directly catching BaseException in bootstrap configure script) - #55439 (Remove unused sys import from generate-deriving-span-tests) - #55440 (Remove unreachable code in hasClass function in Rustdoc) - #55447 (Fix invalid path in generate-deriving-span-tests.py.) Failed merges: r? @ghost
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2018
[beta]: Prepare the 1.31.0 beta release * Update to Cargo's branched 1.31.0 branch * Update the channel to `beta` Rolled up beta-accepted PRs: * #55362: Remove `cargo new --edition` from release notes. * #55325: Fix link to macros chapter * #55358: Remove redundant clone (2) * #55346: Shrink `Statement`. * #55274: Handle bindings in substructure of patterns with type ascriptions * #55297: Partial implementation of uniform paths 2.0 to land before beta * #55192: Fix ordering of nested modules in non-mod.rs mods * #55185: path suggestions in Rust 2018 should point out the change in semantics * #55423: back out bogus `Ok`-wrapping suggestion on `?` arm type mismatch Note that **this does not update the bootstrap compiler** due to #55404
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
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.
This suggestion was introduced in #51938 / 6cc78bf (while introducing different language for type errors coming from
?rather than amatch), but it has a lot of false-positives, and incorrect suggestions carry more badness than marginal good suggestions do goodness. I regret not doing this earlier. 😞Resolves #52537, resolves #54578.
r? @estebank