Remove specific errors for very old obsolete syntax (#9627)#9712
Merged
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom Oct 4, 2013
Merged
Remove specific errors for very old obsolete syntax (#9627)#9712bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
bors merged 1 commit intorust-lang:masterfrom
Conversation
Replaces existing tests for removed obsolete-syntax errors with tests for the resulting regular errors, adds a test for each of the removed parser errors to make sure that obsolete forms don't start working again, removes some obsolete/superfluous tests that were now failing. Deletes some amount of dead code in the parser, also includes some small changes to parser error messages to accomodate new tests.
Contributor
Author
|
Did I remove too much? Not enough? Both? |
Contributor
|
@ben0x539 thanks! I think those two are fine to stay. The test coverage is nice too! r? core-review (r+ from me) |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 4, 2013
Mostly as per a short discussion on irc. (@cmr) 08:46 < cmr> so I'm thinking Obsolete{Let,With,FieldTerminator,ClassTraits,ModeInFnType,MoveInit,BinaryMove,I mplSyntax,MutOwnedPointer,MutVector,RecordType,RecordPattern,PostFnTySigil,Newty pEnum,Mode,ImplicitSelf,LifetimeNotation,Purity,StaticMethod,ConstItem,FixedLeng thVectorType} 08:46 < cmr> Those are the ones that are older than 0.6 08:46 < cmr> (at least!) This PR removes these specific "obsolete syntax"/"suggestion for change" errors and just lets the parser run into regular parser errors for long-invalid syntax. I also removed `ObsoletePrivSection` which apparently dates further back than cmr or I could recall and `ObsoleteUnenforcedBound` which seemed unused. Also I removed `ObsoleteNewtypeEnum`.
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Oh my this is so nice to see.
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 21, 2022
Remove `lib.register_*` and `src/docs*` in `cargo dev update_lints` Follow up to rust-lang#9709 / rust-lang#9541 There's a good number of PRs with some leftover `src/docs` files for example, and as a reviewer it's something we're used to ignoring so it can easily slip through r? `@flip1995` changelog: none
This file contains hidden or 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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
Mostly as per a short discussion on irc. (@cmr)
This PR removes these specific "obsolete syntax"/"suggestion for change" errors and just lets the parser run into regular parser errors for long-invalid syntax. I also removed
ObsoletePrivSectionwhich apparently dates further back than cmr or I could recall andObsoleteUnenforcedBoundwhich seemed unused. Also I removedObsoleteNewtypeEnum.