infer: remove distinction for "simple type errors"

[birkenfeld]

Previously, the second "expected X, found Y" in parens was omitted for simple errors because it added no information.

Now that this is always omitted, there is no need for a distinction anymore. This change restores the "expected, found" message for such errors.

Fixes: #33366

[rust-highfive]

r? @arielb1

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

[nikomatsakis]

Hmm. I'm surprised we're not seeing the span_label actually, even in old mode output.

[nikomatsakis]

@birkenfeld so actually I see the problem now. I think we give special treatment to labels attached to the primary span, which we ignore (for...reasonably good reasons). After some discussion with @jonathandturner I think the easiest fix is to make the check_old_skool helper in syntax::errors public, and then invoke it here sort of like so:

// this would replace line 561ifcheck_old_skool(){
err.note(&format("{}", terr));}else{
err.span_label(trace.origin.span(),&terr);}

Basically the problem here is that we don't have QUITE enough info to know whether to convert the "span label" into a note or not. We could augment the span_label call with some extra information, but given that we hope the "backwards compat" mode will be fairly temporary, it feels a bit like overkill. I guess it depends how often this scenario will arise.

[birkenfeld]

Right, if you are confident that the backwards compatibility mode will be removed soon, I agree that this can be ignored.

While at it, are you aware that the new error format breaks default editor/IDE "go to error" mechanics (because the file/line is not at BOL, but after a -->)?

[nikomatsakis]

@birkenfeld

While at it, are you aware that the new error format breaks default editor/IDE "go to error" mechanics (because the file/line is not at BOL, but after a -->)?

Indeed, this is the primary reason that the new format is not yet the default. I plan to submit a PR for emacs rust-mode in a bit, at least (I have a local fix, or at least a mostly fix). We have to work with other editors. (Which editor are you using?)

[nikomatsakis]

@birkenfeld

Right, if you are confident that the backwards compatibility mode will be removed soon, I agree that this can be ignored.

I didn't meant to suggest we should ignore it, I want the "default output" to be good to be sure. I was just suggesting we might fix this a different way. Basically, in old mode, we can move the content of the "span_label" call into the main message (this isn't quite what I wrote before, which suggested we should add a new note, but now I think that's probably wrong, or at least not what we did before).

[birkenfeld]

(Which editor are you using?)

I'm also using Emacs (and used to customizing it), so personally I'm fine, just wanted to make sure you're aware.

I was just suggesting we might fix this a different way.

Sure. Should I try to make this change here, or do you want to fix it while you work on the new errors anyway?

[sophiajt]

@birkenfeld yeah should be fair game if there are parts of the old-style errors that got worse with the recent PR. I was poking around a bit. If we started with this PR, but changed your:

if !is_simple_error {

to:

if !is_simple_error || check_old_skool(){

And then plumb through check_old_skool. I think that gets the old behavior you want to turn back on, while leaving it off in the new style errors where we use labels.

[nikomatsakis]

closing in favor of #33367