Reorder nesting scopes and declare bindings without drop schedule by dingxiangfei2009 · Pull Request #101410 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)

dingxiangfei2009

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler

Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

label

Sep 4, 2022

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Sep 5, 2022

jackh726

Comment on lines 38 to 39

jackh726

@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

Sep 13, 2022

Dylan-DPC added a commit to Dylan-DPC/rust that referenced this pull request

Sep 13, 2022

@Dylan-DPC

…ing, r=jackh726

Reorder nesting scopes and declare bindings without drop schedule

Fix rust-lang#99228 Fix rust-lang#99975

Storages are previously not declared before entering the else block of a let .. else statement. However, when breaking out of the pattern matching into the else block, those storages are recorded as scheduled for drops. This is not expected.

This MR fixes this issue by not scheduling the drops for those storages.

cc @est31

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-author

Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.

and removed S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

labels

Sep 14, 2022

@dingxiangfei2009

@dingxiangfei2009

@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-author

Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author.

labels

Sep 15, 2022

rust-highfive added a commit to rust-lang-nursery/rust-toolstate that referenced this pull request

Sep 15, 2022

@rust-highfive

GuillaumeGomez added a commit to GuillaumeGomez/rust that referenced this pull request

Sep 16, 2022

@GuillaumeGomez

…plett

Stabilize let else

🎉 **Stabilizes the let else feature, added by RFC 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:

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. 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):

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

Added by bf7c32a (rust-lang#89965):

Added by 8565419 (rust-lang#89974):

Added by 9b45713:

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

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

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

Added by fec8a50 (rust-lang#89841):

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

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

Added by e7730dc (rust-lang#94208):

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

Added by 5374688 (rust-lang#98574):

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

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

Added by baf9a7c (rust-lang#99518):

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

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

Added by e3c5bd6 (rust-lang#100443):

Added by 9818526 (rust-lang#100443):

Added by e182d12 (rust-lang#100434):

Added by e262856 (rust-lang#99954):

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

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

Added by af591eb (rust-lang#101410):

Added by this PR:

Things not currently tested

Edit: they are all tested now.

Possible future work / Refutable destructuring assignments

RFC 2909 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:

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.

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Sep 17, 2022

Dylan-DPC added a commit to Dylan-DPC/rust that referenced this pull request

Sep 17, 2022

@Dylan-DPC

…plett

Stabilize let else

🎉 **Stabilizes the let else feature, added by RFC 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:

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. 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):

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

Added by bf7c32a (rust-lang#89965):

Added by 8565419 (rust-lang#89974):

Added by 9b45713:

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

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

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

Added by fec8a50 (rust-lang#89841):

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

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

Added by e7730dc (rust-lang#94208):

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

Added by 5374688 (rust-lang#98574):

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

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

Added by baf9a7c (rust-lang#99518):

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

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

Added by e3c5bd6 (rust-lang#100443):

Added by 9818526 (rust-lang#100443):

Added by e182d12 (rust-lang#100434):

Added by e262856 (rust-lang#99954):

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

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

Added by af591eb (rust-lang#101410):

Added by this PR:

Things not currently tested

Edit: they are all tested now.

Possible future work / Refutable destructuring assignments

RFC 2909 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:

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.

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Sep 19, 2022

@bors

…icate-storage-live, r=oli-obk

Avoid duplicating StorageLive in let-else

cc @est31

Fix rust-lang#101867 Fix rust-lang#101932

rust-lang#101410 introduced directives to activate storages of bindings in let-else earlier. However, since it is using the machinery of match and friends for pattern matching and binding, those storages are activated for the second time. This PR adjusts this behavior and avoid the duplicated activation for let-else statements.

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Oct 4, 2022