Rollup merge of #122780 - GuillaumeGomez:rename-hir-local, r=oli-obk

Rename `hir::Local` into `hir::LetStmt`

Follow-up of #122776.

As discussed on [zulip](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Improve.20naming.20of.20.60ExprKind.3A.3ALet.60.3F).

I made this change into a separate PR because I'm less sure about this change as is. For example, we have `visit_local` and `LocalSource` items. Is it fine to keep these two as is (I supposed it is but I prefer to ask) or not? Having `Node::Local(LetStmt)` makes things more explicit but is it going too far?

r? ```@oli-obk```
This commit is contained in:
Matthias Krüger 2024-03-23 15:00:18 +01:00 committed by GitHub
commit 99e34b4f7a
No known key found for this signature in database
GPG key ID: B5690EEEBB952194
82 changed files with 178 additions and 177 deletions

View file

@ -11,7 +11,7 @@ use rustc_data_structures::fx::FxHashSet;
use rustc_hir as hir;
use rustc_hir::def_id::DefId;
use rustc_hir::intravisit::{self, Visitor};
use rustc_hir::{Arm, Block, Expr, Local, Pat, PatKind, Stmt};
use rustc_hir::{Arm, Block, Expr, LetStmt, Pat, PatKind, Stmt};
use rustc_index::Idx;
use rustc_middle::middle::region::*;
use rustc_middle::ty::TyCtxt;
@ -123,7 +123,7 @@ fn resolve_block<'tcx>(visitor: &mut RegionResolutionVisitor<'tcx>, blk: &'tcx h
for (i, statement) in blk.stmts.iter().enumerate() {
match statement.kind {
hir::StmtKind::Let(hir::Local { els: Some(els), .. }) => {
hir::StmtKind::Let(LetStmt { els: Some(els), .. }) => {
// Let-else has a special lexical structure for variables.
// First we take a checkpoint of the current scope context here.
let mut prev_cx = visitor.cx;
@ -855,7 +855,7 @@ impl<'tcx> Visitor<'tcx> for RegionResolutionVisitor<'tcx> {
fn visit_expr(&mut self, ex: &'tcx Expr<'tcx>) {
resolve_expr(self, ex);
}
fn visit_local(&mut self, l: &'tcx Local<'tcx>) {
fn visit_local(&mut self, l: &'tcx LetStmt<'tcx>) {
resolve_local(self, Some(l.pat), l.init)
}
}