Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Add note when matching on tuples/ADTs containing non-exhaustive types #114397
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
Add note when matching on tuples/ADTs containing non-exhaustive types #114397
Changes from all commits
82ce7b1
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
For this case, should the
... does not have a fixed maximum value
note be reported for bothisize
andusize
?I would think it should, but my PR currently outputs the note for
isize
only. When I recurse into the witness of(0isize, 0usize)
, I getNonExhaustive
for theisize
, butWildcard
for theusize
. Is this intentional?Likewise for the case at https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/114397/files#diff-079dd1fff457e8e3896d1365b6d8780efeadcf0b79e01928f36f4f81874213a9R54-R58
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Ah yeah, this is a limitation/feature of the exhaustiveness algorithm: it reports the "first pattern it finds", so in this case it didn't bother looking into the second part of the tuple before returning the error. It seems fine to report only the first one.