Implement label break value (RFC 2046) by est31 · Pull Request #50045 · rust-lang/rust

est31 · 2018-04-18T07:52:56Z

Implement label-break-value (#48594).

emilyalbini · 2018-04-20T09:01:31Z

Highfive failed to assign a reviewer for this, picking one randomly.

shepmaster · 2018-05-06T21:21:47Z

Ping from triage, @est31 ! Are you still able to make progress on this?

est31 · 2018-05-06T22:28:38Z

@shepmaster it is a bit tricky. I guess I am waiting for me to have time for the PR again as well as for issue #50060 to resolve. Also for the PR to get older so that it has a nicer place in the queue once it gets into a mergeable state :)

est31 · 2018-05-11T14:21:12Z

The particular ICE I ran into is fixed. Now it ICEs further down the pipeline. Progress I guess :p.

est31 · 2018-05-12T06:43:44Z

All ICEs fixed. Now I still need more tests, error checking as well as feature gating.

est31 · 2018-05-12T09:47:55Z

Ready for review. r? @eddyb

No error checking or feature gating yet

est31 · 2018-05-16T12:02:37Z

rebased. r? @eddyb

eddyb · 2018-05-16T12:44:49Z

@bors r+

bors · 2018-05-16T12:44:50Z

📌 Commit ae1553a has been approved by eddyb

bors · 2018-05-16T14:22:25Z

⌛ Testing commit ae1553a with merge 0e325d0...

Implement label break value (RFC 2046) Implement label-break-value (#48594).

bors · 2018-05-16T17:05:22Z

☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis
Approved by: eddyb
Pushing 0e325d0 to master...

cc rust-lang/rust#50045.

# Stabilization proposal The feature was implemented in rust-lang#50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now). There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`. There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed). 1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: rust-lang#48594 (comment) 2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: rust-lang#48594 (comment) 3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: rust-lang#48594 (comment) Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided: - A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: rust-lang#48594 (comment) - A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: rust-lang#48594 (comment). This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize). - Several examples by JohnBSmith: rust-lang#48594 (comment) - Several examples by Centril: rust-lang#48594 (comment) - An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: rust-lang#48594 (comment) - Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: rust-lang#48594 (comment) Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: rust-lang#48594 (comment) nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems. joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly (rust-lang#48594 (comment)) but there are no open RFCs, and the design space seems rather speculative. joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: rust-lang#48594 (comment) withoutboats has regrettably left the language team. joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: rust-lang#48594 (comment) [issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+ ## Report + Feature gate: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs + Diagnostics: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6b2d3d5f3cd1e553d87b5496632132565b6779d3/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569 + Tests: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs ## Interactions with other features Labels follow the hygiene of local variables. label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks: ```rust let _: Result<(), ()> = try { 'foo: { Err(())?; break 'foo; } }; ``` label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks: ```rust 'a: { || break 'a //~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a` //~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure } ``` label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]: ```rust fn labeled_match() { match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here _ => {} } } macro_rules! m { ($b:block) => { 'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here |x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here } } fn foo() { m!({}); } ``` [_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html [_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html

# Stabilization proposal The feature was implemented in rust-lang/rust#50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now). There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`. There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed). 1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) 2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) 3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided: - A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment). This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize). - Several examples by JohnBSmith: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - Several examples by Centril: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems. joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly (rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment)) but there are no open RFCs, and the design space seems rather speculative. joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) withoutboats has regrettably left the language team. joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) [issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+ ## Report + Feature gate: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs + Diagnostics: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6b2d3d5f3cd1e553d87b5496632132565b6779d3/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569 + Tests: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs ## Interactions with other features Labels follow the hygiene of local variables. label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks: ```rust let _: Result<(), ()> = try { 'foo: { Err(())?; break 'foo; } }; ``` label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks: ```rust 'a: { || break 'a //~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a` //~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure } ``` label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]: ```rust fn labeled_match() { match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here _ => {} } } macro_rules! m { ($b:block) => { 'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here |x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here } } fn foo() { m!({}); } ``` [_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html [_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html

# Stabilization proposal The feature was implemented in rust-lang/rust#50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now). There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`. There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed). 1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) 2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) 3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided: - A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment). This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize). - Several examples by JohnBSmith: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - Several examples by Centril: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems. joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly (rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment)) but there are no open RFCs, and the design space seems rather speculative. joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) withoutboats has regrettably left the language team. joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) [issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+ ## Report + Feature gate: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs + Diagnostics: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/da920d15830d2376be914c68767c4b7dca846959/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569 + Tests: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs ## Interactions with other features Labels follow the hygiene of local variables. label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks: ```rust let _: Result<(), ()> = try { 'foo: { Err(())?; break 'foo; } }; ``` label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks: ```rust 'a: { || break 'a //~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a` //~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure } ``` label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]: ```rust fn labeled_match() { match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here _ => {} } } macro_rules! m { ($b:block) => { 'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here |x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here } } fn foo() { m!({}); } ``` [_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html [_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html

# Stabilization proposal The feature was implemented in rust-lang/rust#50045 by est31 and has been in nightly since 2018-05-16 (over 4 years now). There are [no open issues][issue-label] other than the tracking issue. There is a strong consensus that `break` is the right keyword and we should not use `return`. There have been several concerns raised about this feature on the tracking issue (other than the one about tests, which has been fixed, and an interaction with try blocks, which has been fixed). 1. nrc's original comment about cost-benefit analysis: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) 2. joshtriplett's comments about seeing use cases: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) 3. withoutboats's comments that Rust does not need more control flow constructs: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) Many different examples of code that's simpler using this feature have been provided: - A lexer by rpjohnst which must repeat code without label-break-value: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - A snippet by SergioBenitez which avoids using a new function and adding several new return points to a function: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment). This particular case would also work if `try` blocks were stabilized (at the cost of making the code harder to optimize). - Several examples by JohnBSmith: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - Several examples by Centril: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - An example by petrochenkov where this is used in the compiler itself to avoid duplicating error checking code: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) - Amanieu recently provided another example related to complex conditions, where try blocks would not have helped: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) Additionally, petrochenkov notes that this is strictly more powerful than labelled loops due to macros which accidentally exit a loop instead of being consumed by the macro matchers: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) nrc later resolved their concern, mostly because of the aforementioned macro problems. joshtriplett suggested that macros could be able to generate IR directly (rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment)) but there are no open RFCs, and the design space seems rather speculative. joshtriplett later resolved his concerns, due to a symmetry between this feature and existing labelled break: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) withoutboats has regrettably left the language team. joshtriplett later posted that the lang team would consider starting an FCP given a stabilization report: rust-lang/rust#48594 (comment) [issue-label]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues?q=is%3Aissue+is%3Aopen+label%3AF-label_break_value+ ## Report + Feature gate: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/src/test/ui/feature-gates/feature-gate-label_break_value.rs + Diagnostics: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/6b2d3d5f3cd1e553d87b5496632132565b6779d3/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/diagnostics.rs#L2629 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L749 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/f65bf0b2bb1a99f73095c01a118f3c37d3ee614c/compiler/rustc_resolve/src/diagnostics.rs#L1001 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/111df9e6eda1d752233482c1309d00d20a4bbf98/compiler/rustc_passes/src/loops.rs#L254 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L2079 - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/d695a497bbf4b20d2580b75075faa80230d41667/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L1569 + Tests: - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_continue.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_unlabeled_break.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/label/label_break_value_illegal_uses.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/lint/unused_labels.rs - https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/run-pass/for-loop-while/label_break_value.rs ## Interactions with other features Labels follow the hygiene of local variables. label-break-value is permitted within `try` blocks: ```rust let _: Result<(), ()> = try { 'foo: { Err(())?; break 'foo; } }; ``` label-break-value is disallowed within closures, generators, and async blocks: ```rust 'a: { || break 'a //~^ ERROR use of unreachable label `'a` //~| ERROR `break` inside of a closure } ``` label-break-value is disallowed on [_BlockExpression_]; it can only occur as a [_LoopExpression_]: ```rust fn labeled_match() { match false 'b: { //~ ERROR block label not supported here _ => {} } } macro_rules! m { ($b:block) => { 'lab: $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here unsafe $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here |x: u8| -> () $b; //~ ERROR cannot use a `block` macro fragment here } } fn foo() { m!({}); } ``` [_BlockExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/block-expr.html [_LoopExpression_]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/expressions/loop-expr.html