Suggest use .. to fill in the rest of the fields of Struct by chenyukang · Pull...

Looking better!

Can you actually set the base expression like above? Something like base = ast::StructRest::Base(e). Basically emulate the code above. That should suppress the "missing fields x and y in initializer of V3" error below.

Also, can handle the case of ... } like above?

All reactions

oo, I left the "missing fields x and y in initializer of V3" intentionally, I thought it may helpful for let developer know which fields are missing.

And for the case of ...}, we need to suggest something like ..{expr}? So I left it as before also.

All reactions

I thought it may helpful for let developer know which fields are missing.

This is extra noise if the developer wrote ... instead of .., which is what your PR is trying to fix, right?

And for the case of ...}, we need to suggest something like ..{expr}?

Not in the case of a pattern, which is the same place that .. } is valid.

---

Basically, we should treat ... typo as closely to .. as possible, especially if we're "recovering" parsing here.

All reactions

It may actually be easier to merge this check with the .. logic above, since we're basically just duplicating that.

All reactions

Ok, I will make a update.

compiler-errors reacted with heart emoji All reactions

For the case of let V3 { z: val, ...} = v, we already have a check to report:

error: expected field pattern, found `...`
  --> /home/cat/code/rust/src/test/ui/parser/issue-102806.rs:23:22
   |
23 |     let V3 { z: val, ... } = v;
   |                      ^^^ help: to omit remaining fields, use one fewer `.`: `..`

Will keep same as before.

All reactions

It may actually be easier to merge this check with the .. logic above, since we're basically just duplicating that.

Tried to merge the two checks, but I found split them seems more easy to read.

All reactions

That's ok, I don't think it's necessary

All reactions

Finally, merge it with the .. logic above

All reactions