bjoernager/rust
bjoernager/rust
1
Fork 0
Code Activity

suggest removing the tuple struct field for the unwrapped value

Browse source 
add a test case for macro
This commit is contained in:
Takayuki Maeda 2022-07-22 15:53:00 +09:00
parent 9a7b7d5e50
commit f85f37583d
4 changed files with 90 additions and 0 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

15
compiler/rustc_typeck/src/check/demand.rs
View file

@ -287,6 +287,21 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> FnCtxt<'a, 'tcx> {
expr_ty: Ty<'tcx>,
) {
if let ty::Adt(expected_adt, substs) = expected.kind() {
if let hir::ExprKind::Field(base, ident) = expr.kind {
let base_ty = self.typeck_results.borrow().expr_ty(base);
if self.can_eq(self.param_env, base_ty, expected).is_ok()
&& let Some(base_span) = base.span.find_ancestor_inside(expr.span)
{
err.span_suggestion_verbose(
expr.span.with_lo(base_span.hi()),
format!("consider removing the tuple struct field `{ident}`"),
"",
Applicability::MaybeIncorrect,
);
return
}
}
// If the expression is of type () and it's the return expression of a block,
// we suggest adding a separate return expression instead.
// (To avoid things like suggesting `Ok(while .. { .. })`.)