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:
commit
99e34b4f7a
82 changed files with 178 additions and 177 deletions
|
@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ impl<'v> hir_visit::Visitor<'v> for StatCollector<'v> {
|
|||
hir_visit::walk_foreign_item(self, i)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
||||
fn visit_local(&mut self, l: &'v hir::Local<'v>) {
|
||||
fn visit_local(&mut self, l: &'v hir::LetStmt<'v>) {
|
||||
self.record("Local", Id::Node(l.hir_id), l);
|
||||
hir_visit::walk_local(self, l)
|
||||
}
|
||||
|
|
|
@ -342,7 +342,7 @@ impl<'tcx> IrMaps<'tcx> {
|
|||
}
|
||||
|
||||
impl<'tcx> Visitor<'tcx> for IrMaps<'tcx> {
|
||||
fn visit_local(&mut self, local: &'tcx hir::Local<'tcx>) {
|
||||
fn visit_local(&mut self, local: &'tcx hir::LetStmt<'tcx>) {
|
||||
self.add_from_pat(local.pat);
|
||||
if local.els.is_some() {
|
||||
self.add_live_node_for_node(local.hir_id, ExprNode(local.span, local.hir_id));
|
||||
|
@ -1350,7 +1350,7 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> Liveness<'a, 'tcx> {
|
|||
// Checking for error conditions
|
||||
|
||||
impl<'a, 'tcx> Visitor<'tcx> for Liveness<'a, 'tcx> {
|
||||
fn visit_local(&mut self, local: &'tcx hir::Local<'tcx>) {
|
||||
fn visit_local(&mut self, local: &'tcx hir::LetStmt<'tcx>) {
|
||||
self.check_unused_vars_in_pat(local.pat, None, None, |spans, hir_id, ln, var| {
|
||||
if local.init.is_some() {
|
||||
self.warn_about_dead_assign(spans, hir_id, ln, var);
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Add table
Add a link
Reference in a new issue