Add support for destructuring vectors in match expressions #4143
Conversation
|
This is a very nice looking patch. |
|
Since this was written, the default binding mode changed from the old implicit by-ref to |
|
I'll merge this presently, just wanted to check .. this is substantial enough that we should probably have a contributor agreement. Have you filled one of those out? |
|
@graydon No, I have not... Is this the one you have in mind: http://www.mozilla.org/hacking/committer/? I'll take a look. |
|
@graydon I submitted the agreement via e-mail today. |
|
I rebased and made some more changes to make the exhaustiveness/reachability checks cleaner. The lifetime problems with destructured tails are clearly an oversight on my part, I hadn't looked into the memory categorization pass at all. |
|
Excellent. Contributor forms received, landed this in 6c83fe4 , thanks so much! |
ghost
deleted the
Rework use_self impl based on ty::Ty comparison rust-lang#3410 | Take 2 This builds on top of rust-lang#5531 I already reviewed and approved the commits by `@montrivo.` So only the review of my commits should be necessary. I would also appreciate your review `@montrivo,` since you are familiar with the challenges here. Fixes rust-lang#3410 and Fixes rust-lang#4143 (same problem) Fixes rust-lang#2843 Fixes rust-lang#3859 Fixes rust-lang#4734 and fixes rust-lang#6221 Fixes rust-lang#4305 Fixes rust-lang#5078 (even at expression level now 🎉) Fixes rust-lang#3881 and Fixes rust-lang#4887 (same problem) Fixes rust-lang#3909 Not yet: rust-lang#4140 (test added) All the credit for the fixes goes to `@montrivo.` I only refactored and copy and pasted his code. changelog: rewrite [`use_self`] lint and fix multiple (8) FPs. One to go.
Resubmitting #4091 as I cannot seem to be able to change the target branch in the original PR. I squashed the commits as there isn't much of a logical separation possible and some of them were in half-broken state.
It'd be great if we could get this in for 0.5 if it's not too late. I'm stil considering @erickt's [a, ..b, c] proposal and wonder what other people think? As we're rejecting that syntax now, we can still be forward compatible with just the [a, ..tail] variant, though, so this could be added later on.