-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
[redundant_pattern_matching
]: include guard in suggestion
#11175
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
2 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
I feel like this comment might be a bit confusing. If you ( the reviewer(s) ) already understand what this means, feel free to ignore.
Looking at the HIR here: https://godbolt.org/z/8413T1rjP (line 521-522), the guard is not
Guard::IfLet
, butGuard::If
, with thelet
expression being potentially somewhere deep in the expression tree, so just checkingGuard::If
is not enough -- it may still be an if let guard despite the guard not beingGuard::IfLet
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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.
This is perhaps because it's desugared to something akin a let-chain, or at least something very similar, which is like
And<Let, And<Expr, And<Expr, Let>>>
or something in the HIR, withExpr
being a regular&&
andLet
being&& let
, so you can probably check the first inBinary::And
afaik but perhaps this would have issues on something likeif true && let Some(x) = x
, I'm not sure. Better safe than sorry though so the current way is fineJust
if let Some(_) = x
on its own isIfLet
. I suppose it's becauseIfLet
only allows oneLet
, while it needs aBinaryKind::And
for a let chain to be represented