Skip to content

Conversation

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

This keyword is about to be used much more often than it was a few weeks ago,
it's time to tell editors about the new keyword.

@adrientetar
Copy link
Contributor

The Rust manual has a section for keywords also.

This keyword is about to be used much more often than it was a few weeks ago,
it's time to tell editors about the new keyword.
@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member Author

Good catch!

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request May 8, 2014
This keyword is about to be used much more often than it was a few weeks ago,
it's time to tell editors about the new keyword.
@bors bors closed this May 8, 2014
@bors bors merged commit 9485261 into rust-lang:master May 8, 2014
@alexcrichton alexcrichton deleted the box-keyword branch May 11, 2014 18:21
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Feb 13, 2023
bors pushed a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2025
bors pushed a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jan 28, 2025
…ons (rust-lang#14019)

This PR fixes an issue with the `significant_drop_in_scrutinee`, where
the lint generates invalid Rust syntax when suggesting fixes for match
expressions that are part of larger expressions, such as in assignment
contexts. For example:

```rust
    let mutex = Mutex::new(State {});
    let _ = match mutex.lock().unwrap().foo() {
        true => 0,
        false => 1,
    };
```
would suggest:
```rust
let _ = let value = mutex.lock().unwrap().foo();
match value {
```
With this PR, it now suggests:
```rust
let value = mutex.lock().unwrap().foo();
let _ = match value {
```

closes: rust-lang#13986

changelog: [`significant_drop_in_scrutinee`] Fix incorrect suggestion
for `significant_drop_in_scrutinee` lint in expression context
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants