Skip to content

Conversation

Manishearth
Copy link
Member

r? @eddyb or @nrc

@Manishearth
Copy link
Member Author

I'm not sure if this is the right approach. Copying over my comment from the issue:

Either we need to abort_if_errors when creating the closure EUV in typeck/check/upvar.rs, in analyze_closure(), OR we need to abort in check_path_enum in _match.rs.

abort_if_errors means that it may not finish checking the whole crate, so the errors will get cut off. We need to determine where it's acceptable to cut it off.

Is there a smarter way to handle this? Perhaps by propagating a TyError or something?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't like this. Can't we do better?

@eddyb
Copy link
Member

eddyb commented Nov 3, 2015

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 3, 2015

📌 Commit 6468292 has been approved by eddyb

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Nov 3, 2015
@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Nov 3, 2015

⌛ Testing commit 6468292 with merge 4aa1f59...

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