-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 180
Skip update fallback if return type has non-static lifetime #896
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Skip update fallback if return type has non-static lifetime #896
Conversation
✅ Deploy Preview for salsa-rs canceled.
|
src/update.rs
Outdated
@@ -494,6 +494,7 @@ fallback_impl! { compact_str::CompactString, } | |||
|
|||
macro_rules! tuple_impl { | |||
($($t:ident),*; $($u:ident),*) => { | |||
#[diagnostic::do_not_recommend] |
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 also seemed like a nice quality of life improvement. The error message just lists all the tuple types otherwise.
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.
Ah, not supported in 1.80 though
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.
Removed d812631
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.
You can bring this back, we bumped the MSRV now (needs a rebase then)
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.
ah nice, will do then
CodSpeed Performance ReportMerging #896 will not alter performanceComparing Summary
|
impl<'ast> syn::visit::Visit<'ast> for HasLifetimeVisitor { | ||
fn visit_lifetime(&mut self, l: &'ast syn::Lifetime) { | ||
// We don't consider `'static` to be a lifetime in this context. | ||
if l.ident != "static" { | ||
self.has_lifetime = true; | ||
} | ||
} | ||
} |
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 unfortunately breaks down with macro calls in the type, -> foo!()
might expand to something introducing an elided lifetime. Likewise a user could use a Foo<'_>
but without specifying the <'_>
which warns post 2018 edition, but not error.
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.
Both of those seem like reasonable gaps to me, since it will still fallback to the current behaviour. Although I could see the argument that it might create even more confusing behaviour.
What do you think the best path forward is? I have no problems with closing this PR if it doesn't seem worth it.
I had a return type like
Result<Tracked<'db>, Error>
and the error message was complaining about'db
not being'static
. It took me a while to figure out that the'db
wasn't the problem, it was that myError
type doesn't implementUpdate
.Since tracking down where the
'static
bound comes it's fairly obvious why, but for future people this might provide a slightly easier debugging experience.