'static is accepted as a loop label name #33059
Labels
T-lang
Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Comments
|
Seems bogus. |
|
They're described as "lifetime names", so like, in a twisted way, it makes sense, but it also makes no sense. Agree that it should probably be removed. |
|
Should rust keywords not be used as label name (and not just EDIT: thanks for the remark @alrz, it's updated. |
|
That's a double-negative right there. |
|
It seems like the difference in syntax would prevent a conflict, though I could be wrong (I'm new to Rust). It might be worthwhile to at least have the compiler throw a warning for ergonomic reasons. |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
May 26, 2016
Add AST validation pass and move some checks to it The purpose of this pass is to catch constructions that fit into AST data structures, but not permitted by the language. As an example, `impl`s don't have visibilities, but for convenience and uniformity with other items they are represented with a structure `Item` which has `Visibility` field. This pass is intended to run after expansion of macros and syntax extensions (and before lowering to HIR), so it can catch erroneous constructions that were generated by them. This pass allows to remove ad hoc semantic checks from the parser, which can be overruled by syntax extensions and occasionally macros. The checks can be put here if they are simple, local, don't require results of any complex analysis like name resolution or type checking and maybe don't logically fall into other passes. I expect most of errors generated by this pass to be non-fatal and allowing the compilation to proceed. I intend to move some more checks to this pass later and maybe extend it with new checks, like, for example, identifier validity. Given that syntax extensions are going to be stabilized in the measurable future, it's important that they would not be able to subvert usual language rules. In this patch I've added two new checks - a check for labels named `'static` and a check for lifetimes and labels named `'_`. The first one gives a hard error, the second one - a future compatibility warning. Fixes #33059 ([breaking-change]) cc rust-lang/rfcs#1177 r? @nrc
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Jun 1, 2016
Add AST validation pass and move some checks to it The purpose of this pass is to catch constructions that fit into AST data structures, but not permitted by the language. As an example, `impl`s don't have visibilities, but for convenience and uniformity with other items they are represented with a structure `Item` which has `Visibility` field. This pass is intended to run after expansion of macros and syntax extensions (and before lowering to HIR), so it can catch erroneous constructions that were generated by them. This pass allows to remove ad hoc semantic checks from the parser, which can be overruled by syntax extensions and occasionally macros. The checks can be put here if they are simple, local, don't require results of any complex analysis like name resolution or type checking and maybe don't logically fall into other passes. I expect most of errors generated by this pass to be non-fatal and allowing the compilation to proceed. I intend to move some more checks to this pass later and maybe extend it with new checks, like, for example, identifier validity. Given that syntax extensions are going to be stabilized in the measurable future, it's important that they would not be able to subvert usual language rules. In this patch I've added two new checks - a check for labels named `'static` and a check for lifetimes and labels named `'_`. The first one gives a hard error, the second one - a future compatibility warning. Fixes #33059 ([breaking-change]) cc rust-lang/rfcs#1177 r? @nrc
steveklabnik
added
the
T-lang
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Compiles on stable/beta/nightly:
Not sure if it's bad or not, but worth opening an issue.
It may conflict with a possible future block lifetime notation or something.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: