-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 90
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
Fix REPL panic on transitive imports #1474
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
---|---|---|
|
@@ -113,7 +113,12 @@ impl<EC: EvalCache> ReplImpl<EC> { | |
resolved_ids: pending, | ||
} = import_resolution::strict::resolve_imports(t, self.vm.import_resolver_mut())?; | ||
for id in &pending { | ||
dbg!(self.vm.import_resolver_mut().resolve_imports(*id)).unwrap(); | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Ah, an |
||
self.vm | ||
.import_resolver_mut() | ||
.resolve_imports(*id) | ||
.map_err(|cache_err| { | ||
cache_err.unwrap_error("repl::eval_(): expected imports to be parsed") | ||
})?; | ||
} | ||
|
||
let wildcards = | ||
|
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I believe one case such as
Some(state) if state >= EntryState::ImportResolved
is equally clear and a bit less verbose. Enumerating the cases has the advantages that if we ever add a phase, this forces us to update this part of this code (and thus to think about what we should do), but I fee like the ordering is enough here: whatever are the next phases, if we're pastImportResovled
, there's nothing to do.I really don't feel strongly about it though, feel free to ignore
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree that would be better. The disadvantage is that then rust can't tell the pattern is exhaustive, so we have to either add a
_ => unreachable!()
or changeNone
to a wildcard match. Before,None
was a wildcard match, and that was one of the things that confused me. ("what can this be besides None?? Oh, it can't.")There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, I see. Haven't thought about that. If it confused you, it's a sign that it might be better indeed (given than this version is more verbose but not unclear).