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

Remove ObligationCause::span() method #132243

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 28, 2024
Merged

Conversation

compiler-errors
Copy link
Member

I think it's an incredibly confusing footgun to expose both obligation_cause.span and obligation_cause.span(). Especially because ObligationCause::span() (the method) seems to just be hacking around a single quirk in the way we set up obligation causes for match arms.

First commit removes the need for that hack, with only one diagnostic span changing (but IMO not really getting worse -- I'd argue that it was already confusing).

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Oct 27, 2024

r? @TaKO8Ki

rustbot has assigned @TaKO8Ki.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Oct 27, 2024
@compiler-errors
Copy link
Member Author

I don't think the reviewer is active, so:

r? compiler

@rustbot rustbot assigned jieyouxu and unassigned TaKO8Ki Oct 27, 2024
Copy link
Member

@jieyouxu jieyouxu left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Thanks! I think I ran into this before and indeed it is extremely confusing.

@jieyouxu
Copy link
Member

@bors r+ rollup

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Oct 28, 2024

📌 Commit 7f54b9e has been approved by jieyouxu

It is now in the queue for this repository.

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Oct 28, 2024
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2024
Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#131633 (error on alignments greater than `isize::MAX`)
 - rust-lang#132086 (Tweak E0277 highlighting and "long type" path printing)
 - rust-lang#132220 (Add GUI regression test for doc struct fields margins)
 - rust-lang#132225 (Dynamically link run-make support)
 - rust-lang#132227 (Pass constness with span into lower_poly_trait_ref)
 - rust-lang#132242 (Support `char::is_digit` in const contexts.)
 - rust-lang#132243 (Remove `ObligationCause::span()` method)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
@bors bors merged commit 3e3feac into rust-lang:master Oct 28, 2024
6 checks passed
rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Oct 28, 2024
Rollup merge of rust-lang#132243 - compiler-errors:no-span, r=jieyouxu

Remove `ObligationCause::span()` method

I think it's an incredibly confusing footgun to expose both `obligation_cause.span` and `obligation_cause.span()`. Especially because `ObligationCause::span()` (the method) seems to just be hacking around a single quirk in the way we set up obligation causes for match arms.

First commit removes the need for that hack, with only one diagnostic span changing (but IMO not really getting worse -- I'd argue that it was already confusing).
@rustbot rustbot added this to the 1.84.0 milestone Oct 28, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants