Split redundant_closure lint #4101
Conversation
Move the method checking into a new lint called `redundant_closures_for_method_calls` and put it in the pedantic group. This aspect of the lint seems more controversial than the rest. cc #3942
|
I'm not sure if we actually decided to do this but it was mentioned as a possibility by @Manishearth in #3942 (comment) . |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
r+, unsure if the name should be so long. Also I'd like another person to verify we want this (@flip1995, @matthiaskrgr?)
|
I think splitting those lints is the correct thing to do. There are too many FPs and annoyances that aren't trivial to fix. I would add to the changelog, that the new lint is in the pedantic group though. "to a new lint" -> "to a new As for the name: I can't come up with a shorter name. But I would keep the singular form from the previous lint: redundant_closure |
|
We might want to beta backport this |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit f1f1940 has been approved by |
…=Manishearth Split redundant_closure lint Move the method checking into a new lint called `redundant_closures_for_method_calls` and put it in the pedantic group. This aspect of the lint seems more controversial than the rest. cc #3942 changelog: Move method checking from `redundant_closure` to a new `pedantic` lint called `redundant_closures_for_method_calls`.
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit 373d270 has been approved by |
…=Manishearth Split redundant_closure lint Move the method checking into a new lint called `redundant_closures_for_method_calls` and put it in the pedantic group. This aspect of the lint seems more controversial than the rest. cc #3942 changelog: Move method checking from `redundant_closure` to a new `pedantic` lint called `redundant_closure_for_method_calls`.
|
We may want to beta backport this so it's in the stable release next week. This will probably have to be rewritten from scratch, though. |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit ce63f3a has been approved by |
…=Manishearth Split redundant_closure lint Move the method checking into a new lint called `redundant_closures_for_method_calls` and put it in the pedantic group. This aspect of the lint seems more controversial than the rest. cc #3942 changelog: Move method checking from `redundant_closure` to a new `pedantic` lint called `redundant_closure_for_method_calls`.
rust-lang#4101 Splits up redundant_closure's method checking into a pedantic lint
|
💔 Test failed - status-appveyor |
|
@bors r=Manishearth |
|
📌 Commit 08d2a0d has been approved by |
…=Manishearth Split redundant_closure lint Move the method checking into a new lint called `redundant_closures_for_method_calls` and put it in the pedantic group. This aspect of the lint seems more controversial than the rest. cc #3942 changelog: Move method checking from `redundant_closure` to a new `pedantic` lint called `redundant_closure_for_method_calls`.
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-travis, status-appveyor |
rust-lang#4101 Splits up redundant_closure's method checking into a pedantic lint
rust-lang#4101 Splits up redundant_closure's method checking into a pedantic lint
rust-lang#4101 Splits up redundant_closure's method checking into a pedantic lint
rust-lang#4101 Splits up redundant_closure's method checking into a pedantic lint
rust-lang#4101 Splits up redundant_closure's method checking into a pedantic lint
ghost
deleted the
Move the method checking into a new lint called
redundant_closures_for_method_callsand put it in the pedantic group.This aspect of the lint seems more controversial than the rest.
cc #3942
changelog: Move method checking from
redundant_closureto a newpedanticlint calledredundant_closure_for_method_calls.