Check type of fields when struct is matched against enum-like pattern #5055
Conversation
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
Previously check always succeeded because struct type was derived from the matched expression, not the matched pattern.
Try field type pattern check instead of ad-hoc type check. Fix rust-lang#4849
|
I attached a patch to #5046 |
|
I think @bors recognized wrong approval. Should I close this pull request and waiting for sanxyin's one to be merged first? |
|
Do you have a test case for which new codes are needed? |
|
I didn't found any case. I just tried similar implementation pattern as like other type nodes of match. |
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
May 2, 2020
…tor-import, r=llogiq Fix new lint generator import Fix `rustc_lint` import path and add lifetimes to `LateLintPass` in `new_lint` command. changelog: none
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Try field type pattern check instead of ad-hoc type check.
Fix #4849