Add let else drop order tests by est31 · Pull Request #99291 · rust-lang/rust (original) (raw)

est31

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler

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

label

Jul 15, 2022

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Jul 15, 2022

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Jul 15, 2022

7 tasks

@est31 est31 marked this pull request as ready for review

July 15, 2022 20:03

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Jul 21, 2022

Mark-Simulacrum

camsteffen

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Jul 30, 2022

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Jul 30, 2022

This was referenced

Aug 10, 2022

@est31 est31 changed the titleAdd more let else tests Add let else drop order tests

Aug 12, 2022

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

Aug 12, 2022

@Dylan-DPC

@est31 est31 mentioned this pull request

Aug 14, 2022

pnkfelix

@est31 est31 marked this pull request as ready for review

September 5, 2022 02:04

joshtriplett

joshtriplett

joshtriplett

@est31

…op order

The drop order of let and let else is supposed to be the same, and in order to ensure this, the test checks that this holds for the given list of cases.

The test also ensures that we drop the temporaries of the condition before executing the else block.

We made the test matrix based so it can check all the possible combinations and find out possible edge cases.

@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 5, 2022

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

Sep 5, 2022

@matthiaskrgr

Add let else drop order tests

Add a systematic matrix based test that checks temporary drop order in various settings, let-else-drop-order.rs, as requested [here](rust-lang#93628 (comment)).

The drop order of let and let else is supposed to be the and in order to ensure this, the test checks that this holds for a number of cases.

The test also ensures that we drop the temporaries of the condition before executing the else block.

cc rust-lang#87335 tracking issue for let else

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

Sep 5, 2022

@JohnTitor

Add let else drop order tests

Add a systematic matrix based test that checks temporary drop order in various settings, let-else-drop-order.rs, as requested [here](rust-lang#93628 (comment)).

The drop order of let and let else is supposed to be the and in order to ensure this, the test checks that this holds for a number of cases.

The test also ensures that we drop the temporaries of the condition before executing the else block.

cc rust-lang#87335 tracking issue for let else

This was referenced

Sep 5, 2022

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

Sep 6, 2022

@bors

Rollup of 7 pull requests

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost @rustbot modify labels: rollup

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.

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.