Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body) #56746
Conversation
This file contains 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
…previously not in test suite.
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
pnkfelix
added
A-lifetimes
nikomatsakis
approved these changes
Dec 12, 2018
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 29e7ca9 has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
pietroalbini
added a commit
to pietroalbini/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 12, 2018
…osure-using-region-from-containing-fn, r=nikomatsakis Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body) This behavior was previously not encoded in our test suite. it is pretty important that we test this behavior. In particular, in rust-lang#56537 I had proposed expanding the lifetime elision rules so that they would apply to some of the cases encoded in this test, which would cause them to start failing to compile successfully (because the lifetime attached to the return type would start being treated as connected to the lifetime on the input parameter to the lambda expression, which is explicitly *not* what the code wants in this particular case). In other words, I am trying to ensure that anyone who tries such experiments with lifetime elision in the future quickly finds out why we don't support lifetime elision on lambda expressions (at least not in the naive manner described on rust-lang#56537).
pietroalbini
added a commit
to pietroalbini/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 13, 2018
…osure-using-region-from-containing-fn, r=nikomatsakis Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body) This behavior was previously not encoded in our test suite. it is pretty important that we test this behavior. In particular, in rust-lang#56537 I had proposed expanding the lifetime elision rules so that they would apply to some of the cases encoded in this test, which would cause them to start failing to compile successfully (because the lifetime attached to the return type would start being treated as connected to the lifetime on the input parameter to the lambda expression, which is explicitly *not* what the code wants in this particular case). In other words, I am trying to ensure that anyone who tries such experiments with lifetime elision in the future quickly finds out why we don't support lifetime elision on lambda expressions (at least not in the naive manner described on rust-lang#56537).
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 13, 2018
…osure-using-region-from-containing-fn, r=nikomatsakis Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body) This behavior was previously not encoded in our test suite. it is pretty important that we test this behavior. In particular, in rust-lang#56537 I had proposed expanding the lifetime elision rules so that they would apply to some of the cases encoded in this test, which would cause them to start failing to compile successfully (because the lifetime attached to the return type would start being treated as connected to the lifetime on the input parameter to the lambda expression, which is explicitly *not* what the code wants in this particular case). In other words, I am trying to ensure that anyone who tries such experiments with lifetime elision in the future quickly finds out why we don't support lifetime elision on lambda expressions (at least not in the naive manner described on rust-lang#56537).
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2018
…osure-using-region-from-containing-fn, r=nikomatsakis Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body) This behavior was previously not encoded in our test suite. it is pretty important that we test this behavior. In particular, in rust-lang#56537 I had proposed expanding the lifetime elision rules so that they would apply to some of the cases encoded in this test, which would cause them to start failing to compile successfully (because the lifetime attached to the return type would start being treated as connected to the lifetime on the input parameter to the lambda expression, which is explicitly *not* what the code wants in this particular case). In other words, I am trying to ensure that anyone who tries such experiments with lifetime elision in the future quickly finds out why we don't support lifetime elision on lambda expressions (at least not in the naive manner described on rust-lang#56537).
kennytm
added a commit
to kennytm/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2018
…osure-using-region-from-containing-fn, r=nikomatsakis Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body) This behavior was previously not encoded in our test suite. it is pretty important that we test this behavior. In particular, in rust-lang#56537 I had proposed expanding the lifetime elision rules so that they would apply to some of the cases encoded in this test, which would cause them to start failing to compile successfully (because the lifetime attached to the return type would start being treated as connected to the lifetime on the input parameter to the lambda expression, which is explicitly *not* what the code wants in this particular case). In other words, I am trying to ensure that anyone who tries such experiments with lifetime elision in the future quickly finds out why we don't support lifetime elision on lambda expressions (at least not in the naive manner described on rust-lang#56537).
pietroalbini
added a commit
to pietroalbini/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 14, 2018
…osure-using-region-from-containing-fn, r=nikomatsakis Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body) This behavior was previously not encoded in our test suite. it is pretty important that we test this behavior. In particular, in rust-lang#56537 I had proposed expanding the lifetime elision rules so that they would apply to some of the cases encoded in this test, which would cause them to start failing to compile successfully (because the lifetime attached to the return type would start being treated as connected to the lifetime on the input parameter to the lambda expression, which is explicitly *not* what the code wants in this particular case). In other words, I am trying to ensure that anyone who tries such experiments with lifetime elision in the future quickly finds out why we don't support lifetime elision on lambda expressions (at least not in the naive manner described on rust-lang#56537).
pietroalbini
added a commit
to pietroalbini/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2018
…osure-using-region-from-containing-fn, r=nikomatsakis Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body) This behavior was previously not encoded in our test suite. it is pretty important that we test this behavior. In particular, in rust-lang#56537 I had proposed expanding the lifetime elision rules so that they would apply to some of the cases encoded in this test, which would cause them to start failing to compile successfully (because the lifetime attached to the return type would start being treated as connected to the lifetime on the input parameter to the lambda expression, which is explicitly *not* what the code wants in this particular case). In other words, I am trying to ensure that anyone who tries such experiments with lifetime elision in the future quickly finds out why we don't support lifetime elision on lambda expressions (at least not in the naive manner described on rust-lang#56537).
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 15, 2018
Rollup of 14 pull requests Successful merges: - #56718 (Use libbacktrace pretty-printing) - #56725 (fix rust-lang/rust issue #50583) - #56731 (Add missing urls in ffi module docs) - #56738 (Fix private_no_mangle_fns message grammar) - #56746 (Add test of current behavior (infer free region within closure body)) - #56747 (target: remove Box returned by get_targets) - #56751 (Allow ptr::hash to accept fat pointers) - #56755 (Account for `impl Trait` when suggesting lifetime) - #56758 (Add short emoji status to toolstate updates) - #56760 (Deduplicate unsatisfied trait bounds) - #56769 (Add x86_64-unknown-uefi target) - #56792 (Bootstrap: Add testsuite for compiletest tool) - #56808 (Fixes broken links) - #56809 (Fix docs path to PermissionsExt) Failed merges: r? @ghost
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.
This behavior was previously not encoded in our test suite.
it is pretty important that we test this behavior. In particular, in #56537 I had proposed expanding the lifetime elision rules so that they would apply to some of the cases encoded in this test, which would cause them to start failing to compile successfully (because the lifetime attached to the return type would start being treated as connected to the lifetime on the input parameter to the lambda expression, which is explicitly not what the code wants in this particular case).
In other words, I am trying to ensure that anyone who tries such experiments with lifetime elision in the future quickly finds out why we don't support lifetime elision on lambda expressions (at least not in the naive manner described on #56537).