Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Fold E0612, E0613 into E0609 - #42996
Conversation
rust-highfive
commented
Jun 30, 2017
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @pnkfelix (or someone else) soon. If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. |
strangeglyph
commented
Jun 30, 2017
My apologies, I forgot to run the full test suite and apparently missed something. |
strangeglyph
commented
Jul 1, 2017
All tests pass now on my end |
Mark-Simulacrum
commented
Jul 2, 2017
Thanks for the pull request! We'll get @pnkfelix or someone else from the compiler team to review this soon. cc @GuillaumeGomez -- perhaps you'd like to take a look since I believe you created some of these in the first place? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like this error is a bit different than the others. Not sure if this is a good idea to merge it as well... To be more precise: the others refer to non-existing fields whereas this one is about accessing a out-of-bound value (so it kind of exist).
GuillaumeGomez
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I really think we should keep E0612 on its own and not merge it with others.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please put them into the error code list at the bottom.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This error is clearly less good from my point of view. Before it was very clear but now, seems more confusing.
strangeglyph
commented
Jul 2, 2017
@GuillaumeGomez Alright, reverted the changes to E0612 |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Jul 3, 2017
Thanks! Please squash your commits and then it's good for me. |
994ef30 to
d7ebc61Comparealexcrichton
commented
Jul 6, 2017
ping @GuillaumeGomez, looks like this has been updated and is ready for a re-review? |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Jul 6, 2017
The review was done, I was waiting for the squash. Since it's done, we can r+. Thanks @Boreeas! @bors: r+ |
bors
commented
Jul 6, 2017
📌 Commit d7ebc61 has been approved by |
strangeglyph
commented
Jul 6, 2017
No problem! My apologies for not sending a notice that I squashed |
bors
commented
Jul 7, 2017
🔒 Merge conflict |
d7ebc61 to
c215d08Comparestrangeglyph
commented
Jul 7, 2017
Rebased the PR |
GuillaumeGomez
commented
Jul 8, 2017
Then here we go again! @bors: r+ |
bors
commented
Jul 8, 2017
📌 Commit c215d08 has been approved by |
bors
commented
Jul 8, 2017
bors
commented
Jul 8, 2017
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
As discussed in #42945, with PR 1506 tuple indices are no longer considered a separate case from normal field. This PR folds E06012 ("tuple index out of bounds") and E0613 ("type is not a tuple") into E0609 ("type does not have field with that name")
Resolves#42945