Implement let-else type annotations natively by cormacrelf · Pull Request #89841 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)

Comment on lines 120 to 125

Comment on lines 145 to 151

apiraino added the T-compiler

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

label

Oct 14, 2021

est31 mentioned this pull request

Oct 16, 2021

7 tasks

camelid removed the T-rustdoc

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

label

Dec 12, 2021

unify typeck of hir::Local and hir::Let remove extraneous pub(crate/super)

fix clippy format using cargo fmt -p clippy_{lints,utils} manually revert rustfmt line truncations rename to hir::Let in clippy Undo the shadowing of various expr variables after renaming scrutinee reduce destructuring of hir::Let to avoid expr collisions cargo fmt -p clippy_{lints,utils} bless new clippy::author output

collect explicit-mut passing tests in one file

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

Dec 17, 2021

This was referenced

Dec 18, 2021

flip1995 pushed a commit to flip1995/rust that referenced this pull request

Dec 30, 2021

Implement let-else type annotations natively

Tracking issue: rust-lang#87335

Fixes rust-lang#89688, fixes rust-lang#89807, edit: fixes rust-lang#89960 as well

As explained in rust-lang#89688 (comment), the previous desugaring moved the let-else scrutinee into a dummy variable, which meant if you wanted to refer to it again in the else block, it had moved.

This introduces a new hir type, ~~hir::LetExpr~~ hir::Let, which takes over all the fields of hir::ExprKind::Let(...) and adds an optional type annotation. The hir::Let is then treated like a hir::Local when type checking a function body, specifically:

GatherLocalsVisitor overrides a new Visitor::visit_let_expr and does pretty much exactly what it does for visit_local, assigning a local type to the hir::Let ~~(they could be deduplicated but they are right next to each other, so at least we know they're the same)~~
It reuses the code in check_decl_local to typecheck the hir::Let, simply returning 'bool' for the expression type after doing that.
~~FnCtxt::check_expr_let passes this local type in to demand_scrutinee_type, and then imitates check_decl_local's pattern checking~~
~~demand_scrutinee_type (the blindest change for me, please give this extra scrutiny) uses this local type instead of of creating a new one~~
- ~~Just realised the check_expr_with_needs was passing NoExpectation further down, need to pass the type there too. And apparently this Expectation API already exists.~~

Some other misc notes:

~~Is the clippy code supposed to be autoformatted? I tried not to give huge diffs but maybe some rustfmt changes simply haven't hit it yet.~~
in rustc_ast_lowering/src/block.rs, I noticed some existing self.alias_attrs() calls in LoweringContext::lower_stmts seem to be copying attributes from the lowered locals/etc to the statements. Is that right? I'm new at this, I don't know.

est31 mentioned this pull request

Feb 9, 2022

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

Sep 16, 2022

…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):

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 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 to ensure that no } directly preceding the else is allowed in the expression, as the RFC mandates.
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 to ensure that the irrefutable_let_patterns lint fires.
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 to ensure the else block diverges.
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 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 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 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 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 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 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 and 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 and 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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, 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, 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, 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 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 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 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 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.

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

Sep 17, 2022