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

Rollup of 3 pull requests #74023

Closed
wants to merge 9 commits into from

Conversation

Manishearth
Copy link
Member

Successful merges:

Failed merges:

r? @ghost

djugei and others added 9 commits May 27, 2020 19:59
The recursive check of `try_print_visible_def_path` did not properly handle
the Rust 2018 case of crate-paths without 'extern crate'. Instead, it returned
a "not found" via (false, self).

This fixes issue rust-lang#56175.
added .collect() into String from Box<str>

I have not created an rfc, because i felt like this is a very minor change.

i have just set a random feature name and rust version as stability attribute, i expect to have to change that, i just don't know what the policy on that is. all guides i could find focused on contributing to the compiler, not contributing to the standard library.

drawbacks: more code in the standard library, could be replaced with specialization: base-implementation for AsRef\<str> and specialization for String and Cow. i can write that code if ppl want it.

advantages: using "real strings" i.e. Box\<str> is as ergonomic as string slices (&str) and string buffers (String) with iterators.
…r=petrochenkov

Fix try_print_visible_def_path for Rust 2018

The recursive check of `try_print_visible_def_path` did not properly handle the Rust 2018 case of crate-paths without 'extern crate'. Instead, it returned a "not found" via (false, self).

 This fixes rust-lang#56175.
…bank

Audit hidden/short code suggestions

Should fix rust-lang#73641.
Audit uses of `span_suggestion_short` and `tool_only_span_suggestion` (`span_suggestion_hidden` is already tested with `run-rustfix`). Leave some FIXMEs for futher improvements/fixes.
r? @estebank
@Manishearth
Copy link
Member Author

@bors r+ p=5 rollup=never

guess it's a bit pointless but why not get an early start

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 4, 2020

📌 Commit 1e8c0e5 has been approved by Manishearth

@bors bors added the S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. label Jul 4, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 4, 2020

⌛ Testing commit 1e8c0e5 with merge 112adc93e59c6de2d619cbba48f04fe467f5689a...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 4, 2020

💔 Test failed - checks-actions

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. labels Jul 4, 2020
@Manishearth Manishearth closed this Jul 4, 2020
@Manishearth Manishearth deleted the rollup-sm93mik branch July 18, 2020 01:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants