Rollup of 2 pull requests #147897
Closed
Rollup of 2 pull requests #147897
+427
−409
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
This simplifies the initial conditional, and will allow reusing the variable in subsequent checks.
This suppresses warnings on things like `Result<(), !>`, which helps simplify code using the common pattern of having an `Error` associated type: code will only have to check the error if there is a possibility of error.
This makes it easier to review without cross-referencing each test function with its invocation.
…r=lcnr,petrochenkov Deny-by-default never type lints In Rust [1.89.0](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/milestone/133) we started emitting these lints in dependencies. I discussed the future steps with `@lcnr` and we think that before stabilizing the never type (and doing the breaking changes) we should deny the lints for ~4 releases. This PR marks `never_type_fallback_flowing_into_unsafe` and `dependency_on_unit_never_type_fallback` lints as deny-by-default. Tracking: - rust-lang#35121 Related: - rust-lang#141937
…e-result-unit-uninhabited, r=fmease unused_must_use: Don't warn on `Result<(), Uninhabited>` or `ControlFlow<Uninhabited, ()>` This suppresses warnings on things like `Result<(), !>`, which helps simplify code using the common pattern of having an `Error` associated type: code will only have to check the error if there is a possibility of error. This will, for instance, help with future refactorings of `write!` in the standard library. As this is a user-visible change to lint behavior, it'll require a lang FCP. --- My proposal, here, is that we handle this simple case to make common patterns more usable. This does not rule out the possibility of adding more cases in the future, including general trait-based cases. However, I don't think we should make this common case wait on the more general cases. In particular, this solution does not close any doors on replacing this special case with a general case. This would unblock some planned work in the standard library to make `write!` more usable for infallible cases (e.g. writing into a `Vec` or `String`).
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Looks flaky. |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
7 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.
Successful merges:
Result<(), Uninhabited>orControlFlow<Uninhabited, ()>#147382 (unused_must_use: Don't warn onResult<(), Uninhabited>orControlFlow<Uninhabited, ()>)r? @ghost
@rustbot modify labels: rollup
Create a similar rollup