Skip to content

Downgrade option_if_let_else to nursery #7568

New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Aug 15, 2021

Conversation

dtolnay
Copy link
Member

@dtolnay dtolnay commented Aug 14, 2021

I believe that this lint's loose understanding of ownership (#5822, #6737) makes it unsuitable to be enabled by default in its current state, even as a pedantic lint.

Additionally the lint has known problems with type inference (#6137), though I may be willing to consider this a non-blocker in isolation if it weren't for the ownership false positives.

A fourth false positive involving const fn: #7567.

But on top of these, for me the biggest issue is I basically fully agree with #6137 (comment). In my experience this lint universally makes code worse even when the resulting code does compile.


changelog: remove [option_if_let_else] from default set of enabled lints

@rust-highfive
Copy link

r? @llogiq

(rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Aug 14, 2021
@llogiq
Copy link
Contributor

llogiq commented Aug 15, 2021

Thank you! @bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 15, 2021

📌 Commit 3c8eaa8 has been approved by llogiq

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 15, 2021

⌛ Testing commit 3c8eaa8 with merge 5449e23...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Aug 15, 2021

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: llogiq
Pushing 5449e23 to master...

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants