Change E0451 to output proper indices for tuple-struct fields. #31721
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nrc (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
|
Huh, this is interesting; pretty ambivalent about this. On one hand I see the dissonance between this and the tuple access syntax, on the other hand English. Hm. |
|
@bors r+ rollup thought a bit more about this. As long as it isn't saying "zeroeth" and "first" it should be fine. thanks! |
|
📌 Commit 94499e3 has been approved by |
| @@ -710,7 +710,7 @@ impl<'a, 'tcx> PrivacyVisitor<'a, 'tcx> { | |||
| NamedField(name) => format!("field `{}` of {} is private", | |||
| name, struct_desc), | |||
| UnnamedField(idx) => format!("field #{} of {} is private", | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This use of # always irks me - is it an american thing? I thought using '#' for 'number' went out of fashion in about 1900. The error message would be just as good without the '#', IMO.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
More so when describing the fields as 0-indexed
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm inclined to agree about the error message itself -- it would probably look nicer just as "field X of Y is private". I figure that such a change would be better in another PR, but I could add it to this one.
…anishearth Fixes rust-lang#31706 Also fixes a phrasing error in the diagnostic.
Fixes #31706
Also fixes a phrasing error in the diagnostic.