Don't suggest adding in to a for loop that already has one#157917
Open
onehr wants to merge 1 commit into
Open
Conversation
When a `for` loop is missing its `in`, the parser suggested inserting one based only on the token after the pattern. A malformed binding such as `for i i in 0..10` was therefore "corrected" to `for i in i in 0..10`, which does not parse. Only suggest inserting `in` when the loop header does not already contain one before the body.
Collaborator
|
The parser was modified, potentially altering the grammar of (stable) Rust cc @fmease |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
r? @folkertdev rustbot has assigned @folkertdev. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Closes #103561.
When a
forloop is missing itsin, the parser suggested inserting one based only on the token following the pattern. For a malformed binding such asfor i i in 0..10it therefore suggestedfor i in i in 0..10, which is itself invalid.The suggestion is now only emitted when the loop header does not already contain an
inbefore the body. Thefor x EXPR/for x of EXPR/for x = EXPRsuggestions are unchanged.