-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.6k
overhaul &mut
suggestions in borrowck errors
#145013
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
r? @nnethercote rustbot has assigned @nnethercote. Use |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have only looked at the tests and their outputs so far, some of the suggestions seem suboptimal. Is this expected?
@rustbot author
| | ||
LL | let x: &[isize] = &mut [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; | ||
| +++ | ||
LL | let x: &mut [isize] = &[1, 2, 3, 4, 5]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This is still invalid, it needs to be &mut [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]
.
| | ||
LL | let x = &mut 0 as *const i32; | ||
| +++ | ||
LL | let x: *mut i32 = &0 as *const i32; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Also still invalid, let x = &mut 0 as *mut i32;
would work, without needing the type annotation.
help: consider changing this binding's type | ||
| | ||
LL - let ptr_x: *const _ = &x; | ||
LL + let ptr_x: *mut i32 = &x; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Should be &x
instead of &mut x
.
help: consider using `get_mut` | ||
| | ||
LL - let string = &map[&0]; | ||
LL + let string = map.get_mut(&0).unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
It's a bit confusing that the suggestion is on a different line to the one mentioned earlier in the error. Is it possible to indicate that the line needing to be changed is on line 6?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it possible to indicate that the line needing to be changed is on line 6?
Yes, that is the LL annotation on the left, which gets normalized here but would have printed normally if it isn't in an UI test
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
or would you like me to explicitly say "consider using get_mut
on line 6"? that's possible too
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh right, that's fine then.
help: consider using `get_mut` | ||
| | ||
LL - let string = &map[&0]; | ||
LL + let string = map.get_mut(&0).unwrap(); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ditto
| | ||
help: consider changing this to be a mutable reference | ||
| | ||
LL | let string = &mut vec[0]; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
ditto
Index
impl for which theIndexMut
trait does not apply, do not suggest addingmut
after&
.get_mut
withunwrap
if error is fired onBTreeMap
orHashMap
.Supersedes #144018 cc @xizheyin
Closes #143732