Skip to content
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

destructuring assignment and let else #93995

Closed
lcnr opened this issue Feb 14, 2022 · 12 comments · Fixed by #94211
Closed

destructuring assignment and let else #93995

lcnr opened this issue Feb 14, 2022 · 12 comments · Fixed by #94211
Labels
A-diagnostics Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints A-parser Area: The parsing of Rust source code to an AST F-destructuring_assignment `#![feature(destructuring_assignment)]` F-let_else Issues related to let-else statements (RFC 3137) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor

lcnr commented Feb 14, 2022

#![feature(let_else)]
#[derive(Debug)]
enum Foo {
    Done,
    Nested(Option<&'static Foo>),
}

fn walk(mut value: &Foo) {
    loop {
        println!("{:?}", value);
        &Foo::Nested(Some(value)) = value else { break };
    }
}

results in

error: expected one of `!`, `.`, `::`, `;`, `?`, `{`, `}`, or an operator, found keyword `else`
  --> src/lib.rs:11:36
   |
11 |         Foo::Nested(value) = value else { break };
   |                                    ^^^^ expected one of 8 possible tokens

i.e. a general parser error. This should either be supported and compile, or get a better error.

@lcnr lcnr added A-diagnostics Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Feb 14, 2022
@lcnr lcnr added F-destructuring_assignment `#![feature(destructuring_assignment)]` F-let_else Issues related to let-else statements (RFC 3137) labels Feb 14, 2022
@Fishrock123
Copy link
Contributor

You are not using let … else. The syntax you provided is invalid and should be invalid.

Adding a let to that destructuring assignment makes it work as intended: https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=nightly&mode=debug&edition=2021&gist=65cdac15a8c224569ab6415bfadcb990

@rpjohnst
Copy link
Contributor

@Fishrock123 There's a pre-existing feature distinct from let bindings called "destructuring assignment": #71126

This issue is about the question of how let else and destructuring assignment should (or should not) interact, not just a syntax error.

@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented Feb 14, 2022

I think refutable patterns is where the symmetry breaks down between let and assignments, as let must have a diverging else clause while an else clause for destructuring assignments with refutable patterns does not make sense. See #93628 (comment) where I suggest adoption of a destructuring assignment construct introduced by maybe so that it's obvious to readers that the assignment doesn't neccessarily happen. maybe is not a keyword right now, but can be introduced at an edition boundary. if it's seen as valuable enough to have such sugar in the first place.

When it comes to errors, I always side on having more helpful ones.

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor Author

lcnr commented Feb 16, 2022

I think refutable patterns is where the symmetry breaks down between let and assignments, as let must have a diverging else clause while an else clause for destructuring assignments with refutable patterns does not make sense.

Why that? The reasoning behind adding something like maybe seems to be the same for let-else where we explicitly decided against adding anything apart from the else.

@memoryruins
Copy link
Contributor

There were considerations about these two features interacting in the let_else tracking issue #87335 (comment) and the rfc rust-lang/rfcs#3137 (comment), but discussion was paused for when the features matured a bit, which appears to be now. @matklad if you've had more thoughts about this since that comment, this appears to be the place for it ^^

@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented Feb 17, 2022

I think refutable patterns is where the symmetry breaks down between let and assignments, as let must have a diverging else clause while an else clause for destructuring assignments with refutable patterns does not make sense.

Why that? The reasoning behind adding something like maybe seems to be the same for let-else where we explicitly decided against adding anything apart from the else.

In refutable patterns, there is a default behaviour that destructuring assignments can fall back to, which is not doing the assignment. There is no need for the else clause to diverge, in fact no need for the else clause at all (beyond having some syntax to make it obvious the assignment is not a given). While there is a strong need in the case of let, because let creates a binding.That's what I mean by breakdown of symmetry. There is symmetry for irrefutable patterns.

With "does not make sense", which was probably a bit too strong, I meant that you arrive at else as introducer syntax mainly if you are coming from let else in mind. I think if you design it as its feature of its own right, something like maybe seems more natural. One can think about optionally supporting else clauses for maybe even, but it should not be the primary identifying feature of refutable destructuring assignments.

@rpjohnst
Copy link
Contributor

There is no need for the else clause to diverge, in fact no need for the else clause at all (beyond having some syntax to make it obvious the assignment is not a given).

I wouldn't go quite that far- how do you detect whether the assignment occurred? Refutable patterns have a control flow component that is often useful. You'd still want to be able to take different branches based on whether the pattern matched.

I meant that you arrive at else as introducer syntax mainly if you are coming from let else in mind.

Not at all. When let first got refutable pattern support, it was added via if, and only now extended to else. That's the symmetry that refutable destructuring assignment would need to fit into. A new standalone construct like maybe Some(foo) = bar.get(42) doesn't.

@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented Feb 17, 2022

There is no need for the else clause to diverge, in fact no need for the else clause at all (beyond having some syntax to make it obvious the assignment is not a given).

I wouldn't go quite that far- how do you detect whether the assignment occurred? Refutable patterns have a control flow component that is often useful. You'd still want to be able to take different branches based on whether the pattern matched.

I meant "need" in the sense of a hard requirement for else clauses. There is no need to require else clauses for assignments (outside of wanting introducer syntax for which else is a suboptimal solution).

I meant that you arrive at else as introducer syntax mainly if you are coming from let else in mind.

Not at all. When let first got refutable pattern support, it was added via if, and only now extended to else. That's the symmetry that refutable destructuring assignment would need to fit into. A new standalone construct like maybe Some(foo) = bar.get(42) doesn't.

Oh I see where you are coming from. I'm not convinced that this is the better way of looking at it. if let has always had support for else for example.

@rpjohnst
Copy link
Contributor

rpjohnst commented Feb 17, 2022

There is no need to require else clauses for assignments (outside of wanting introducer syntax for which else is a suboptimal solution).

I don't think there's a need to require else clauses in particular, but I do think there should always be an if or and else or some sort of control flow, rather than ever dropping the control flow silently. That's the place I'm coming from that makes standalone maybe seem to be the odd one out.

@lcnr
Copy link
Contributor Author

lcnr commented Feb 17, 2022

In refutable patterns, there is a default behaviour that destructuring assignments can fall back to, which is not doing the assignment.

I don't think that this is always true, consider the following:

struct Foo(i32);

fn main() {
    let x;
    {
        Foo(x) = Foo(1);
    }
    println!("x");
}

@estebank estebank added the A-parser Area: The parsing of Rust source code to an AST label Feb 18, 2022
@joshtriplett
Copy link
Member

I think it makes sense to consider the possibility of destructuring assignment with an else. I also think such a combination needs to pull its own weight, with use cases independent of let-else, that themselves come across much more clearly than alternatives. And in particular, I think destructuring assignments with else have a disadvantage and higher bar than let-else does, because let ... else has the let as an introducer for the type of statement, while assignments do not, making the else feel more unexpected.

As a result, my first instinct is to document this as not supported, and perhaps improve error messages to steer people towards let-else.

The specific example that opened this thread seems very close to while let, but for want of a do-while-like construct.

@est31
Copy link
Member

est31 commented Feb 21, 2022

I've filed a PR to issue a dedicated error: #94211

@bors bors closed this as completed in d3649f8 Feb 22, 2022
GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this issue Sep 16, 2022
…plett

Stabilize `let else`

:tada:  **Stabilizes the `let else` feature, added by [RFC 3137](rust-lang/rfcs#3137 🎉

Reference PR: rust-lang/reference#1156

closes rust-lang#87335 (`let else` tracking issue)

FCP: rust-lang#93628 (comment)

----------

## Stabilization report

### Summary

The feature allows refutable patterns in `let` statements if the expression is
followed by a diverging `else`:

```Rust
fn get_count_item(s: &str) -> (u64, &str) {
    let mut it = s.split(' ');
    let (Some(count_str), Some(item)) = (it.next(), it.next()) else {
        panic!("Can't segment count item pair: '{s}'");
    };
    let Ok(count) = u64::from_str(count_str) else {
        panic!("Can't parse integer: '{count_str}'");
    };
    (count, item)
}
assert_eq!(get_count_item("3 chairs"), (3, "chairs"));
```

### Differences from the RFC / Desugaring

Outside of desugaring I'm not aware of any differences between the implementation and the RFC. The chosen desugaring has been changed from the RFC's [original](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3137-let-else.html#reference-level-explanations). You can read a detailed discussion of the implementation history of it in `@cormacrelf` 's [summary](rust-lang#93628 (comment)) in this thread, as well as the [followup](rust-lang#93628 (comment)). Since that followup, further changes have happened to the desugaring, in rust-lang#98574, rust-lang#99518, rust-lang#99954. The later changes were mostly about the drop order: On match, temporaries drop in the same order as they would for a `let` declaration. On mismatch, temporaries drop before the `else` block.

### Test cases

In chronological order as they were merged.

Added by df9a2e0 (rust-lang#87688):

* [`ui/pattern/usefulness/top-level-alternation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/pattern/usefulness/top-level-alternation.rs) to ensure the unreachable pattern lint visits patterns inside `let else`.

Added by 5b95df4 (rust-lang#87688):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-bool-binop-init.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-bool-binop-init.rs) to ensure that no lazy boolean expressions (using `&&` or `||`) are allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-brace-before-else.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-brace-before-else.rs) to ensure that no `}` directly preceding the `else` is allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs) to ensure that `#[allow(...)]` attributes added to the entire `let` statement apply for the `else` block.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-irrefutable.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-irrefutable.rs) to ensure that the `irrefutable_let_patterns` lint fires.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-missing-semicolon.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-missing-semicolon.rs) to ensure the presence of semicolons at the end of the `let` statement.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-non-diverging.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-non-diverging.rs) to ensure the `else` block diverges.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs) to ensure the feature works in some simple test case settings.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-scope.rs) to ensure the bindings created by the outer `let` expression are not available in the `else` block of it.

Added by bf7c32a (rust-lang#89965):

* [`ui/let-else/issue-89960.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-89960.rs) as a regression test for the ICE-on-error bug rust-lang#89960 . Later in 102b912 this got removed in favour of more comprehensive tests.

Added by 8565419 (rust-lang#89974):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-if.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-if.rs) to test for the improved error message that points out that `let else if` is not possible.

Added by 9b45713:

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs) as a regression test for rust-lang#89807, to ensure that `#[allow(...)]` attributes added to the entire `let` statement apply for bindings created by the `let else` pattern.

Added by 61bcd8d (rust-lang#89841):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-non-copy.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-non-copy.rs) to ensure that a copy is performed out of non-copy wrapper types. This mirrors `if let` behaviour. The test case bases on rustc internal changes originally meant for rust-lang#89933 but then removed from the PR due to the error prior to the improvements of rust-lang#89841.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-source-expr-nomove-pass.rs `](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-source-expr-nomove-pass.rs) to ensure that while there is a move of the binding in the successful case, the `else` case can still access the non-matching value. This mirrors `if let` behaviour.

Added by 102b912 (rust-lang#89841):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings.rs) and [`ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings-pass.rs `](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings-pass.rs) to check `ref` and `ref mut` keywords in the pattern work correctly and error when needed.

Added by 2715c5f (rust-lang#89841):

* Match ergonomic tests adapted from the `rfc2005` test suite.

Added by fec8a50 (rust-lang#89841):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion-annotated.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion-annotated.rs) and [`ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion.rs) to check deref coercions.

#### Added since this stabilization report was originally written (2022-02-09)

Added by 76ea566 (rust-lang#94211):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-destructuring.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.63.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-destructuring.rs) to give a nice error message if an user tries to do an assignment with a (possibly refutable) pattern and an `else` block, like asked for in rust-lang#93995.

Added by e7730dc (rust-lang#94208):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-allow-in-expr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-allow-in-expr.rs) to test whether `#[allow(unused_variables)]` works in the expr, as well as its non presence, as well as putting it on the entire `let else` *affects* the expr, too. This was adding a missing test as pointed out by the stabilization report.
* Expansion of `ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs` and `ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs` to ensure that non-presence of `#[allow(unused)]` does issue the unused lint. This was adding a missing test case as pointed out by the stabilization report.

Added by 5bd7106 (rust-lang#94208):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-slicing-error.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-slicing-error.rs), a regression test for rust-lang#92069, which got fixed without addition of a regression test. This resolves a missing test as pointed out by the stabilization report.

Added by 5374688 (rust-lang#98574):

* [`src/test/ui/async-await/async-await-let-else.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/async-await/async-await-let-else.rs) to test the interaction of async/await with `let else`

Added by 6c529de (rust-lang#98574):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) as a (partial) regression test for rust-lang#98672

Added by 9b56640 (rust-lang#99518):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temp-borrowck.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) as a regression test for rust-lang#93951
* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a partial regression test for rust-lang#98672 (especially regarding `else` drop order)

Added by baf9a7c (rust-lang#99518):

* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a partial regression test for rust-lang#93951, similar to `let-else-temp-borrowck.rs`

Added by 60be2de (rust-lang#99518):

* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a program that can now be compiled thanks to borrow checker implications of rust-lang#99518

Added by 47a7a91 (rust-lang#100132):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-100103.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-100103.rs), as a regression test for rust-lang#100103, to ensure that there is no ICE when doing `Err(...)?` inside else blocks.

Added by e3c5bd6 (rust-lang#100443):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-then-diverge.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-then-diverge.rs), to verify that there is no unreachable code error with the current desugaring.

Added by 9818526 (rust-lang#100443):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-94176.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-94176.rs), to make sure that a correct span is emitted for a missing trailing expression error. Regression test for rust-lang#94176.

Added by e182d12 (rust-lang#100434):

* [src/test/ui/unpretty/pretty-let-else.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/unpretty/pretty-let-else.rs), as a regression test to ensure pretty printing works for `let else` (this bug surfaced in many different ways)

Added by e262856 (rust-lang#99954):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) extended to contain & borrows as well, as this was identified as an earlier issue with the desugaring: rust-lang#98672 (comment)

Added by 2d8460e (rust-lang#99291):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs) a matrix based test for various drop order behaviour of `let else`. Especially, it verifies equality of `let` and `let else` drop orders, [resolving](rust-lang#93628 (comment)) a [stabilization blocker](rust-lang#93628 (comment)).

Added by 1b87ce0 (rust-lang#101410):

* Edit to `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to add the `-Zvalidate-mir` flag, as a regression test for rust-lang#99228

Added by af591eb (rust-lang#101410):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-99975.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-99975.rs) as a regression test for the ICE rust-lang#99975.

Added by this PR:

* `ui/let-else/let-else.rs`, a simple run-pass check, similar to `ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs`.

### Things not currently tested

* ~~The `#[allow(...)]` tests check whether allow works, but they don't check whether the non-presence of allow causes a lint to fire.~~ → *test added by e7730dc*
* ~~There is no `#[allow(...)]` test for the expression, as there are tests for the pattern and the else block.~~ → *test added by e7730dc*
* ~~`let-else-brace-before-else.rs` forbids the `let ... = {} else {}` pattern and there is a rustfix to obtain `let ... = ({}) else {}`. I'm not sure whether the `.fixed` files are checked by the tooling that they compile. But if there is no such check, it would be neat to make sure that `let ... = ({}) else {}` compiles.~~ → *test added by e7730dc*
* ~~rust-lang#92069 got closed as fixed, but no regression test was added. Not sure it's worth to add one.~~ → *test added by 5bd7106*
* ~~consistency between `let else` and `if let` regarding lifetimes and drop order: rust-lang#93628 (comment) → *test added by 2d8460e*

Edit: they are all tested now.

### Possible future work / Refutable destructuring assignments

[RFC 2909](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2909-destructuring-assignment.html) specifies destructuring assignment, allowing statements like `FooBar { a, b, c } = foo();`.
As it was stabilized, destructuring assignment only allows *irrefutable* patterns, which before the advent of `let else` were the only patterns that `let` supported.
So the combination of `let else` and destructuring assignments gives reason to think about extensions of the destructuring assignments feature that allow refutable patterns, discussed in rust-lang#93995.

A naive mapping of `let else` to destructuring assignments in the form of `Some(v) = foo() else { ... };` might not be the ideal way. `let else` needs a diverging `else` clause as it introduces new bindings, while assignments have a default behaviour to fall back to if the pattern does not match, in the form of not performing the assignment. Thus, there is no good case to require divergence, or even an `else` clause at all, beyond the need for having *some* introducer syntax so that it is clear to readers that the assignment is not a given (enums and structs look similar). There are better candidates for introducer syntax however than an empty `else {}` clause, like `maybe` which could be added as a keyword on an edition boundary:

```Rust
let mut v = 0;
maybe Some(v) = foo(&v);
maybe Some(v) = foo(&v) else { bar() };
```

Further design discussion is left to an RFC, or the linked issue.
Dylan-DPC added a commit to Dylan-DPC/rust that referenced this issue Sep 17, 2022
…plett

Stabilize `let else`

:tada:  **Stabilizes the `let else` feature, added by [RFC 3137](rust-lang/rfcs#3137 🎉

Reference PR: rust-lang/reference#1156

closes rust-lang#87335 (`let else` tracking issue)

FCP: rust-lang#93628 (comment)

----------

## Stabilization report

### Summary

The feature allows refutable patterns in `let` statements if the expression is
followed by a diverging `else`:

```Rust
fn get_count_item(s: &str) -> (u64, &str) {
    let mut it = s.split(' ');
    let (Some(count_str), Some(item)) = (it.next(), it.next()) else {
        panic!("Can't segment count item pair: '{s}'");
    };
    let Ok(count) = u64::from_str(count_str) else {
        panic!("Can't parse integer: '{count_str}'");
    };
    (count, item)
}
assert_eq!(get_count_item("3 chairs"), (3, "chairs"));
```

### Differences from the RFC / Desugaring

Outside of desugaring I'm not aware of any differences between the implementation and the RFC. The chosen desugaring has been changed from the RFC's [original](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3137-let-else.html#reference-level-explanations). You can read a detailed discussion of the implementation history of it in `@cormacrelf` 's [summary](rust-lang#93628 (comment)) in this thread, as well as the [followup](rust-lang#93628 (comment)). Since that followup, further changes have happened to the desugaring, in rust-lang#98574, rust-lang#99518, rust-lang#99954. The later changes were mostly about the drop order: On match, temporaries drop in the same order as they would for a `let` declaration. On mismatch, temporaries drop before the `else` block.

### Test cases

In chronological order as they were merged.

Added by df9a2e0 (rust-lang#87688):

* [`ui/pattern/usefulness/top-level-alternation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/pattern/usefulness/top-level-alternation.rs) to ensure the unreachable pattern lint visits patterns inside `let else`.

Added by 5b95df4 (rust-lang#87688):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-bool-binop-init.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-bool-binop-init.rs) to ensure that no lazy boolean expressions (using `&&` or `||`) are allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-brace-before-else.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-brace-before-else.rs) to ensure that no `}` directly preceding the `else` is allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs) to ensure that `#[allow(...)]` attributes added to the entire `let` statement apply for the `else` block.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-irrefutable.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-irrefutable.rs) to ensure that the `irrefutable_let_patterns` lint fires.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-missing-semicolon.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-missing-semicolon.rs) to ensure the presence of semicolons at the end of the `let` statement.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-non-diverging.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-non-diverging.rs) to ensure the `else` block diverges.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs) to ensure the feature works in some simple test case settings.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-scope.rs) to ensure the bindings created by the outer `let` expression are not available in the `else` block of it.

Added by bf7c32a (rust-lang#89965):

* [`ui/let-else/issue-89960.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-89960.rs) as a regression test for the ICE-on-error bug rust-lang#89960 . Later in 102b912 this got removed in favour of more comprehensive tests.

Added by 8565419 (rust-lang#89974):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-if.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.58.1/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-if.rs) to test for the improved error message that points out that `let else if` is not possible.

Added by 9b45713:

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs) as a regression test for rust-lang#89807, to ensure that `#[allow(...)]` attributes added to the entire `let` statement apply for bindings created by the `let else` pattern.

Added by 61bcd8d (rust-lang#89841):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-non-copy.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-non-copy.rs) to ensure that a copy is performed out of non-copy wrapper types. This mirrors `if let` behaviour. The test case bases on rustc internal changes originally meant for rust-lang#89933 but then removed from the PR due to the error prior to the improvements of rust-lang#89841.
* [`ui/let-else/let-else-source-expr-nomove-pass.rs `](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-source-expr-nomove-pass.rs) to ensure that while there is a move of the binding in the successful case, the `else` case can still access the non-matching value. This mirrors `if let` behaviour.

Added by 102b912 (rust-lang#89841):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings.rs) and [`ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings-pass.rs `](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-ref-bindings-pass.rs) to check `ref` and `ref mut` keywords in the pattern work correctly and error when needed.

Added by 2715c5f (rust-lang#89841):

* Match ergonomic tests adapted from the `rfc2005` test suite.

Added by fec8a50 (rust-lang#89841):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion-annotated.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion-annotated.rs) and [`ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-deref-coercion.rs) to check deref coercions.

#### Added since this stabilization report was originally written (2022-02-09)

Added by 76ea566 (rust-lang#94211):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-destructuring.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.63.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-destructuring.rs) to give a nice error message if an user tries to do an assignment with a (possibly refutable) pattern and an `else` block, like asked for in rust-lang#93995.

Added by e7730dc (rust-lang#94208):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-allow-in-expr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-allow-in-expr.rs) to test whether `#[allow(unused_variables)]` works in the expr, as well as its non presence, as well as putting it on the entire `let else` *affects* the expr, too. This was adding a missing test as pointed out by the stabilization report.
* Expansion of `ui/let-else/let-else-allow-unused.rs` and `ui/let-else/let-else-check.rs` to ensure that non-presence of `#[allow(unused)]` does issue the unused lint. This was adding a missing test case as pointed out by the stabilization report.

Added by 5bd7106 (rust-lang#94208):

* [`ui/let-else/let-else-slicing-error.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/1.61.0/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-slicing-error.rs), a regression test for rust-lang#92069, which got fixed without addition of a regression test. This resolves a missing test as pointed out by the stabilization report.

Added by 5374688 (rust-lang#98574):

* [`src/test/ui/async-await/async-await-let-else.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/async-await/async-await-let-else.rs) to test the interaction of async/await with `let else`

Added by 6c529de (rust-lang#98574):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) as a (partial) regression test for rust-lang#98672

Added by 9b56640 (rust-lang#99518):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temp-borrowck.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) as a regression test for rust-lang#93951
* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a partial regression test for rust-lang#98672 (especially regarding `else` drop order)

Added by baf9a7c (rust-lang#99518):

* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a partial regression test for rust-lang#93951, similar to `let-else-temp-borrowck.rs`

Added by 60be2de (rust-lang#99518):

* Extension of `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to include a program that can now be compiled thanks to borrow checker implications of rust-lang#99518

Added by 47a7a91 (rust-lang#100132):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-100103.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-100103.rs), as a regression test for rust-lang#100103, to ensure that there is no ICE when doing `Err(...)?` inside else blocks.

Added by e3c5bd6 (rust-lang#100443):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-then-diverge.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-then-diverge.rs), to verify that there is no unreachable code error with the current desugaring.

Added by 9818526 (rust-lang#100443):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-94176.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-94176.rs), to make sure that a correct span is emitted for a missing trailing expression error. Regression test for rust-lang#94176.

Added by e182d12 (rust-lang#100434):

* [src/test/ui/unpretty/pretty-let-else.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/unpretty/pretty-let-else.rs), as a regression test to ensure pretty printing works for `let else` (this bug surfaced in many different ways)

Added by e262856 (rust-lang#99954):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs) extended to contain & borrows as well, as this was identified as an earlier issue with the desugaring: rust-lang#98672 (comment)

Added by 2d8460e (rust-lang#99291):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-drop-order.rs) a matrix based test for various drop order behaviour of `let else`. Especially, it verifies equality of `let` and `let else` drop orders, [resolving](rust-lang#93628 (comment)) a [stabilization blocker](rust-lang#93628 (comment)).

Added by 1b87ce0 (rust-lang#101410):

* Edit to `src/test/ui/let-else/let-else-temporary-lifetime.rs` to add the `-Zvalidate-mir` flag, as a regression test for rust-lang#99228

Added by af591eb (rust-lang#101410):

* [`src/test/ui/let-else/issue-99975.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/let-else/issue-99975.rs) as a regression test for the ICE rust-lang#99975.

Added by this PR:

* `ui/let-else/let-else.rs`, a simple run-pass check, similar to `ui/let-else/let-else-run-pass.rs`.

### Things not currently tested

* ~~The `#[allow(...)]` tests check whether allow works, but they don't check whether the non-presence of allow causes a lint to fire.~~ → *test added by e7730dc*
* ~~There is no `#[allow(...)]` test for the expression, as there are tests for the pattern and the else block.~~ → *test added by e7730dc*
* ~~`let-else-brace-before-else.rs` forbids the `let ... = {} else {}` pattern and there is a rustfix to obtain `let ... = ({}) else {}`. I'm not sure whether the `.fixed` files are checked by the tooling that they compile. But if there is no such check, it would be neat to make sure that `let ... = ({}) else {}` compiles.~~ → *test added by e7730dc*
* ~~rust-lang#92069 got closed as fixed, but no regression test was added. Not sure it's worth to add one.~~ → *test added by 5bd7106*
* ~~consistency between `let else` and `if let` regarding lifetimes and drop order: rust-lang#93628 (comment) → *test added by 2d8460e*

Edit: they are all tested now.

### Possible future work / Refutable destructuring assignments

[RFC 2909](https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/2909-destructuring-assignment.html) specifies destructuring assignment, allowing statements like `FooBar { a, b, c } = foo();`.
As it was stabilized, destructuring assignment only allows *irrefutable* patterns, which before the advent of `let else` were the only patterns that `let` supported.
So the combination of `let else` and destructuring assignments gives reason to think about extensions of the destructuring assignments feature that allow refutable patterns, discussed in rust-lang#93995.

A naive mapping of `let else` to destructuring assignments in the form of `Some(v) = foo() else { ... };` might not be the ideal way. `let else` needs a diverging `else` clause as it introduces new bindings, while assignments have a default behaviour to fall back to if the pattern does not match, in the form of not performing the assignment. Thus, there is no good case to require divergence, or even an `else` clause at all, beyond the need for having *some* introducer syntax so that it is clear to readers that the assignment is not a given (enums and structs look similar). There are better candidates for introducer syntax however than an empty `else {}` clause, like `maybe` which could be added as a keyword on an edition boundary:

```Rust
let mut v = 0;
maybe Some(v) = foo(&v);
maybe Some(v) = foo(&v) else { bar() };
```

Further design discussion is left to an RFC, or the linked issue.
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-diagnostics Area: Messages for errors, warnings, and lints A-parser Area: The parsing of Rust source code to an AST F-destructuring_assignment `#![feature(destructuring_assignment)]` F-let_else Issues related to let-else statements (RFC 3137) T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

7 participants