Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

UX Improvement: Ensures clause requires type annotation #3304

Closed
celinval opened this issue Jun 28, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3307
Closed

UX Improvement: Ensures clause requires type annotation #3304

celinval opened this issue Jun 28, 2024 · 1 comment · Fixed by #3307
Assignees
Labels
[C] Feature / Enhancement A new feature request or enhancement to an existing feature.

Comments

@celinval
Copy link
Contributor

Requested feature: Improve UX for ensure clauses.
Use case: Since #3207, ensures are now represented as closures that receive a reference of the return value. However, when using this annotation, we often get an error that requires the type to be specified.
Link to relevant documentation (Rust reference, Nomicon, RFC):

Test case:

#[kani::ensures(|result| *result == Foo::A)]
pub fn foo_a() -> Foo {
    Foo::A
}

I get the following compilation error:

error[E0282]: type annotations needed
  --> promoted_constants_enum.rs:16:18
   |
16 | #[kani::ensures(|result| *result == Foo::A)]
   |                  ^^^^^^  ------- type must be known at this point
   |
help: consider giving this closure parameter an explicit type
   |
16 | #[kani::ensures(|result: /* Type */| *result == Foo::A)]
@celinval celinval added the [C] Feature / Enhancement A new feature request or enhancement to an existing feature. label Jun 28, 2024
@pi314mm
Copy link
Contributor

pi314mm commented Jun 28, 2024

I think this might actually relate to this issue: rust-lang/rust#12679

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
[C] Feature / Enhancement A new feature request or enhancement to an existing feature.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants