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

Introduce enhanced_binary_op feature #93049

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from

Conversation

c410-f3r
Copy link
Contributor

@c410-f3r c410-f3r commented Jan 18, 2022

Addresses the requests of @rust-lang/lang in #88642 (comment).
Direct usage could be applied through a FCP but everything was extracted into a feature flag as inferred by previous comments.

r? @matthewjasper
cc #53667

@rustbot rustbot added the T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Jan 18, 2022
@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jan 18, 2022
@leonardo-m
Copy link

if false || { z = 3; false} || z == 3 {}

That's ugly code to find in the wild

@c410-f3r
Copy link
Contributor Author

@matthewjasper Looks like this feature is more useful with || operators and since they aren't currently supported, I will close this PR in the meanwhile.

@c410-f3r c410-f3r closed this Jan 29, 2022
@c410-f3r
Copy link
Contributor Author

@matthewjasper I am reopening this PR based on our previous discussion about ||

@apiraino
Copy link
Contributor

By reading the latest comment and linked PR, I infer that there is some lang design work to do, so I'll tentatively flip the review switch (but please update it's not correct).

@rustbot author

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Mar 24, 2022
@c410-f3r
Copy link
Contributor Author

Hum... I not aware of any remaining designing work although I could be wrong. FWICT, this feature is mostly about relaxing the existing rules.

For let chains, it doesn't make much different because the following snippet:

fn and_chain() {
    let z;
    if let true = true && { z = 3; true } && z == 3 {}
}

Could be rewritten as:

fn and_chain() {
    if let true = true && let z = 3 && true && z == 3 {
         println!("z is in scope");
    }
}

@c410-f3r
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like ppl are not very interest in this feature so you or anyone else can close this PR if desired :)

@pnkfelix pnkfelix added the I-lang-nominated Nominated for discussion during a lang team meeting. label Mar 24, 2022
@pnkfelix
Copy link
Member

nominating for lang team to confirm that this generalization of existing let_chains behavior is still desired. (It would be good to double-check what RFC itself said, and then confirm with lang team that that is desirable.)

@c410-f3r
Copy link
Contributor Author

Actually this feature was introduced by mistake.

My MIR-FU is not that good so I initially thought that ExprKind::LogicalOp should also be modified in order to introduce let chains but no, it wasn't necessary.

This situation was in fact quite a surprise to me and I didn't know stuff until #88642 (review) 🤷

Let chains and || operators are independent things that happen to interact with this feature but aren't coupled at all. Therefore, it is possible to say that this PR is something that could be added but doesn't look very attractive.

@joshtriplett joshtriplett added the T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. label Apr 5, 2022
@c410-f3r
Copy link
Contributor Author

c410-f3r commented Apr 19, 2022

I will go ahead and close this PR again. It is clear that such feature is not very appealing (at least for now).

The code is fairly simple so a future possible re-addition shouldn't be a problem for anyone interested enough.

@c410-f3r c410-f3r closed this Apr 19, 2022
JohnTitor added a commit to JohnTitor/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 17, 2022
…shtriplett

Stabilize `let_chains` in Rust 1.64

# Stabilization proposal

This PR proposes the stabilization of `#![feature(let_chains)]` in a future-compatibility way that will allow the **possible** addition of the `EXPR is PAT` syntax.

Tracking issue: rust-lang#53667
Version: 1.64 (beta => 2022-08-11, stable => 2022-10-22).

## What is stabilized

The ability to chain let expressions along side local variable declarations or ordinary conditional expressions. For example:

```rust
pub enum Color {
    Blue,
    Red,
    Violet,
}

pub enum Flower {
    Rose,
    Tulip,
    Violet,
}

pub fn roses_are_red_violets_are_blue_printer(
    (first_flower, first_flower_color): (Flower, Color),
    (second_flower, second_flower_color): (Flower, Color),
    pick_up_lines: &[&str],
) {
    if let Flower::Rose = first_flower
        && let Color::Red = first_flower_color
        && let Flower::Violet = second_flower
        && let Color::Blue = second_flower_color
        && let &[first_pick_up_line, ..] = pick_up_lines
    {
        println!("Roses are red, violets are blue, {}", first_pick_up_line);
    }
}

fn main() {
    roses_are_red_violets_are_blue_printer(
        (Flower::Rose, Color::Red),
        (Flower::Violet, Color::Blue),
        &["sugar is sweet and so are you"],
    );
}
```

## Motivation

The main motivation for this feature is improving readability, ergonomics and reducing paper cuts.

For more examples, see the [RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2497-if-let-chains.md).

## What isn't stabilized

* Let chains in match guards (`if_let_guard`)

* Resolution of divergent non-terminal matchers

* The `EXPR is PAT` syntax

## History

* On 2017-12-24, [RFC: if- and while-let-chains](rust-lang/rfcs#2260)
* On 2018-07-12, [eRFC: if- and while-let-chains, take 2](rust-lang/rfcs#2497)
* On 2018-08-24, [Tracking issue for eRFC 2497, "if- and while-let-chains, take 2](rust-lang#53667)
* On 2019-03-19, [Run branch cleanup after copy prop](rust-lang#59290)
* On 2019-03-26, [Generalize diagnostic for x = y where bool is the expected type](rust-lang#59439)
* On 2019-04-24, [Introduce hir::ExprKind::Use and employ in for loop desugaring](rust-lang#60225)
* On 2019-03-19, [[let_chains, 1/6] Remove hir::ExprKind::If](rust-lang#59288)
* On 2019-05-15, [[let_chains, 2/6] Introduce Let(..) in AST, remove IfLet + WhileLet and parse let chains](rust-lang#60861)
* On 2019-06-20, [[let_chains, 3/6] And then there was only Loop](rust-lang#61988)
* On 2020-11-22, [Reintroduce hir::ExprKind::If](rust-lang#79328)
* On 2020-12-24, [Introduce hir::ExprKind::Let - Take 2](rust-lang#80357)
* On 2021-02-19, [Lower condition of if expression before it's "then" block](rust-lang#82308)
* On 2021-09-01, [Fix drop handling for `if let` expressions](rust-lang#88572)
* On 2021-09-04, [Formally implement let chains](rust-lang#88642)
* On 2022-01-19, [Add tests to ensure that let_chains works with if_let_guard](rust-lang#93086)
* On 2022-01-18, [Introduce `enhanced_binary_op` feature](rust-lang#93049)
* On 2022-01-22, [Fix `let_chains` and `if_let_guard` feature flags](rust-lang#93213)
* On 2022-02-25, [Initiate the inner usage of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94376)
* On 2022-01-28, [[WIP] Introduce ast::StmtKind::LetElse to allow the usage of `let_else` with `let_chains`](rust-lang#93437)
* On 2022-02-26, [1 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94396)
* On 2022-02-26, [2 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94400)
* On 2022-02-27, [3 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94420)
* On 2022-02-28, [4 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94445)
* On 2022-02-28, [5 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94448)
* On 2022-02-28, [6 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94465)
* On 2022-03-01, [7 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94476)
* On 2022-03-01, [8 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94484)
* On 2022-03-01, [9 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang#94498)
* On 2022-03-08, [Warn users about `||` in let chain expressions](rust-lang#94754)

From the first RFC (2017-12-24) to the theoretical future stabilization day (2022-10-22), it can be said that this feature took 4 years, 9 months and 28 days of research, development, discussions, agreements and headaches to be settled.

## Divergent non-terminal matchers

More specifically, rust-lang#86730.

```rust
macro_rules! mac {
    ($e:expr) => {
        if $e {
            true
        } else {
            false
        }
    };
}

fn main() {
    // OK!
    assert_eq!(mac!(true && let 1 = 1), true);

    // ERROR! Anything starting with `let` is not considered an expression
    assert_eq!(mac!(let 1 = 1 && true), true);
}
```

To the best of my knowledge, such error or divergence is orthogonal, does not prevent stabilization and can be tackled independently in the near future or effectively in the next Rust 2024 edition. If not, then https://github.com/c410-f3r/rust/tree/let-macro-blah contains a set of changes that will consider `let` an expression.

It is possible that none of the solutions above satisfies all applicable constraints but I personally don't know of any other plausible answers.

## Alternative syntax

Taking into account the usefulness of this feature and the overwhelming desire to use both now and in the past, `let PAT = EXPR` will be utilized for stabilization but it doesn't or shall create any obstacle for a **possible** future addition of `EXPR is PAT`.

The introductory snippet would then be written as the following.

```rust
if first_flower is Flower::Rose
    && first_flower_color is Color::Red
    && second_flower is Flower::Violet
    && second_flower_color is Color::Blue
    && pick_up_lines is &[first_pick_up_line, ..]
{
    println!("Roses are red, violets are blue, {}", first_pick_up_line);
}
```

Just to reinforce, this PR only unblocks a **possible** future road for `EXPR is PAT` and does emphasize what is better or what is worse.

## Tests

* [Verifies the drop order of let chains and ensures it won't change in the future in an unpredictable way](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs)

* [AST lowering does not wrap let chains in an `DropTemps` expression](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs)

* [Checks pretty printing output](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-pretty-check.rs)

* [Verifies uninitialized variables due to MIR modifications](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/chains-without-let.rs)

* [A collection of statements where `let` expressions are forbidden](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs)

* [All or at least most of the places where let chains are allowed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/feature-gate.rs)

* [Ensures that irrefutable lets are allowed in let chains](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs)

* [issue-88498.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-88498.rs), [issue-90722.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs), [issue-92145.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs) and [issue-93150.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-93150.rs) were bugs found by third parties and fixed overtime.

* [Indexing was triggering a ICE due to a wrongly constructed MIR graph](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/no-double-assigments.rs)

* [Protects the precedence of `&&` in relation to other things](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/protect-precedences.rs)

* [`let_chains`, as well as `if_let_guard`, has a valid MIR graph that evaluates conditional expressions correctly](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs)

Most of the infra-structure used by let chains is also used by `if` expressions in stable compiler versions since rust-lang#80357 and rust-lang#88572. As a result, no bugs were found since the integration of rust-lang#88642.

## Possible future work

* Let chains in match guards is implemented and working but stabilization is blocked by `if_let_guard`.

* The usage of `let_chains` with `let_else` is possible but not implemented. Regardless, one attempt was introduced and closed in rust-lang#93437.

Thanks `@Centril` for creating the RFC and huge thanks (again) to `@matthewjasper` for all the reviews, mentoring and MIR implementations.

Fixes rust-lang#53667
workingjubilee pushed a commit to tcdi/postgrestd that referenced this pull request Sep 15, 2022
Stabilize `let_chains` in Rust 1.64

# Stabilization proposal

This PR proposes the stabilization of `#![feature(let_chains)]` in a future-compatibility way that will allow the **possible** addition of the `EXPR is PAT` syntax.

Tracking issue: #53667
Version: 1.64 (beta => 2022-08-11, stable => 2022-10-22).

## What is stabilized

The ability to chain let expressions along side local variable declarations or ordinary conditional expressions. For example:

```rust
pub enum Color {
    Blue,
    Red,
    Violet,
}

pub enum Flower {
    Rose,
    Tulip,
    Violet,
}

pub fn roses_are_red_violets_are_blue_printer(
    (first_flower, first_flower_color): (Flower, Color),
    (second_flower, second_flower_color): (Flower, Color),
    pick_up_lines: &[&str],
) {
    if let Flower::Rose = first_flower
        && let Color::Red = first_flower_color
        && let Flower::Violet = second_flower
        && let Color::Blue = second_flower_color
        && let &[first_pick_up_line, ..] = pick_up_lines
    {
        println!("Roses are red, violets are blue, {}", first_pick_up_line);
    }
}

fn main() {
    roses_are_red_violets_are_blue_printer(
        (Flower::Rose, Color::Red),
        (Flower::Violet, Color::Blue),
        &["sugar is sweet and so are you"],
    );
}
```

## Motivation

The main motivation for this feature is improving readability, ergonomics and reducing paper cuts.

For more examples, see the [RFC](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2497-if-let-chains.md).

## What isn't stabilized

* Let chains in match guards (`if_let_guard`)

* Resolution of divergent non-terminal matchers

* The `EXPR is PAT` syntax

## History

* On 2017-12-24, [RFC: if- and while-let-chains](rust-lang/rfcs#2260)
* On 2018-07-12, [eRFC: if- and while-let-chains, take 2](rust-lang/rfcs#2497)
* On 2018-08-24, [Tracking issue for eRFC 2497, "if- and while-let-chains, take 2](rust-lang/rust#53667)
* On 2019-03-19, [Run branch cleanup after copy prop](rust-lang/rust#59290)
* On 2019-03-26, [Generalize diagnostic for x = y where bool is the expected type](rust-lang/rust#59439)
* On 2019-04-24, [Introduce hir::ExprKind::Use and employ in for loop desugaring](rust-lang/rust#60225)
* On 2019-03-19, [[let_chains, 1/6] Remove hir::ExprKind::If](rust-lang/rust#59288)
* On 2019-05-15, [[let_chains, 2/6] Introduce Let(..) in AST, remove IfLet + WhileLet and parse let chains](rust-lang/rust#60861)
* On 2019-06-20, [[let_chains, 3/6] And then there was only Loop](rust-lang/rust#61988)
* On 2020-11-22, [Reintroduce hir::ExprKind::If](rust-lang/rust#79328)
* On 2020-12-24, [Introduce hir::ExprKind::Let - Take 2](rust-lang/rust#80357)
* On 2021-02-19, [Lower condition of if expression before it's "then" block](rust-lang/rust#82308)
* On 2021-09-01, [Fix drop handling for `if let` expressions](rust-lang/rust#88572)
* On 2021-09-04, [Formally implement let chains](rust-lang/rust#88642)
* On 2022-01-19, [Add tests to ensure that let_chains works with if_let_guard](rust-lang/rust#93086)
* On 2022-01-18, [Introduce `enhanced_binary_op` feature](rust-lang/rust#93049)
* On 2022-01-22, [Fix `let_chains` and `if_let_guard` feature flags](rust-lang/rust#93213)
* On 2022-02-25, [Initiate the inner usage of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94376)
* On 2022-01-28, [[WIP] Introduce ast::StmtKind::LetElse to allow the usage of `let_else` with `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#93437)
* On 2022-02-26, [1 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94396)
* On 2022-02-26, [2 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94400)
* On 2022-02-27, [3 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94420)
* On 2022-02-28, [4 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94445)
* On 2022-02-28, [5 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94448)
* On 2022-02-28, [6 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94465)
* On 2022-03-01, [7 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94476)
* On 2022-03-01, [8 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94484)
* On 2022-03-01, [9 - Make more use of `let_chains`](rust-lang/rust#94498)
* On 2022-03-08, [Warn users about `||` in let chain expressions](rust-lang/rust#94754)

From the first RFC (2017-12-24) to the theoretical future stabilization day (2022-10-22), it can be said that this feature took 4 years, 9 months and 28 days of research, development, discussions, agreements and headaches to be settled.

## Divergent non-terminal matchers

More specifically, rust-lang/rust#86730.

```rust
macro_rules! mac {
    ($e:expr) => {
        if $e {
            true
        } else {
            false
        }
    };
}

fn main() {
    // OK!
    assert_eq!(mac!(true && let 1 = 1), true);

    // ERROR! Anything starting with `let` is not considered an expression
    assert_eq!(mac!(let 1 = 1 && true), true);
}
```

To the best of my knowledge, such error or divergence is orthogonal, does not prevent stabilization and can be tackled independently in the near future or effectively in the next Rust 2024 edition. If not, then https://github.com/c410-f3r/rust/tree/let-macro-blah contains a set of changes that will consider `let` an expression.

It is possible that none of the solutions above satisfies all applicable constraints but I personally don't know of any other plausible answers.

## Alternative syntax

Taking into account the usefulness of this feature and the overwhelming desire to use both now and in the past, `let PAT = EXPR` will be utilized for stabilization but it doesn't or shall create any obstacle for a **possible** future addition of `EXPR is PAT`.

The introductory snippet would then be written as the following.

```rust
if first_flower is Flower::Rose
    && first_flower_color is Color::Red
    && second_flower is Flower::Violet
    && second_flower_color is Color::Blue
    && pick_up_lines is &[first_pick_up_line, ..]
{
    println!("Roses are red, violets are blue, {}", first_pick_up_line);
}
```

Just to reinforce, this PR only unblocks a **possible** future road for `EXPR is PAT` and does emphasize what is better or what is worse.

## Tests

* [Verifies the drop order of let chains and ensures it won't change in the future in an unpredictable way](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs)

* [AST lowering does not wrap let chains in an `DropTemps` expression](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs)

* [Checks pretty printing output](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-pretty-check.rs)

* [Verifies uninitialized variables due to MIR modifications](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/chains-without-let.rs)

* [A collection of statements where `let` expressions are forbidden](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs)

* [All or at least most of the places where let chains are allowed](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/feature-gate.rs)

* [Ensures that irrefutable lets are allowed in let chains](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs)

* [issue-88498.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-88498.rs), [issue-90722.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs), [issue-92145.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs) and [issue-93150.rs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-93150.rs) were bugs found by third parties and fixed overtime.

* [Indexing was triggering a ICE due to a wrongly constructed MIR graph](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/no-double-assigments.rs)

* [Protects the precedence of `&&` in relation to other things](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/protect-precedences.rs)

* [`let_chains`, as well as `if_let_guard`, has a valid MIR graph that evaluates conditional expressions correctly](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs)

Most of the infra-structure used by let chains is also used by `if` expressions in stable compiler versions since rust-lang/rust#80357 and rust-lang/rust#88572. As a result, no bugs were found since the integration of rust-lang/rust#88642.

## Possible future work

* Let chains in match guards is implemented and working but stabilization is blocked by `if_let_guard`.

* The usage of `let_chains` with `let_else` is possible but not implemented. Regardless, one attempt was introduced and closed in rust-lang/rust#93437.

Thanks `@Centril` for creating the RFC and huge thanks (again) to `@matthewjasper` for all the reviews, mentoring and MIR implementations.

Fixes #53667
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
I-lang-nominated Nominated for discussion during a lang team meeting. S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. T-lang Relevant to the language team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants