Clean up librustc_typeck error_codes file

[GuillaumeGomez]

r? @Dylan-DPC

[rust-highfive]

Some changes occurred in diagnostic error codes

cc @GuillaumeGomez

[GuillaumeGomez]

r? @Mark-Simulacrum

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Suggested change

	Somethingelse than numbers and characters has been used for a range.
	Somethingother than numbers and characters has been used for a range.

[Mark-Simulacrum]

I am personally feeling rather against these changes. They seem to move the main description down below the code example, which would at least for me be harmful rather than helpful (the code example isn't usually all that helpful, as I expect it to be essentially the code I've already written!). As such, I would personally not want to r+ this PR. I'm not sure -- but I suspect it'd be good to codify some guidelines before we go through all of these files and change them around. cc @rust-lang/wg-diagnostics -- seems like you'd be interested and would want to get involved.

[GuillaumeGomez]

We did make such rules a few years ago. The structure is supposed to be as follows:

[short description]
Erroneous code example(s):
[failing code example]
[error explanation]
[fixed code example]

cc @steveklabnik

[Mark-Simulacrum]

Do you have a pointer to somewhere where that's documented? If not, would you be willing to make a PR to the forge? I personally think the previously existing "short descriptions" were better than the one-sentence examples this modifies them to -- and would consider them to be pretty short.

[GuillaumeGomez]

That's why I added @steveklabnik: I don't remember if such resource exists or not and I recall talking about this with him at the time. If it does exist, we need to make it more easily accessible.

[JohnCSimon]

Ping from triage - this PR has sat idle for a week.
@steveklabnik can you comment on this?
cc: @GuillaumeGomez@Dylan-DPC@Mark-Simulacrum

Thanks

[GuillaumeGomez]

Actually, it has a merged RFC: rust-lang/rfcs#1567

So I guess it's good to go? Unless if we want to change the RFC?

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+ rollup

Thanks for citing the RFC! It'd be good to perhaps add comments to the top of all the error code files linking to the RFC (http://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/1567-long-error-codes-explanation-normalization.html)?

[bors]

📌 Commit 4a43812049d7e1a5678d71949bdbbd1022f088ef has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r-

Actually, it'd be great to squash this first.

[GuillaumeGomez]

Squashed!

[Mark-Simulacrum]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit db1dd8f has been approved by Mark-Simulacrum