-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.3k
use field init shorthand in src/librustc/ #43008
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
use field init shorthand in src/librustc/ #43008
Conversation
r? @pnkfelix (rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
(haven't built this locally, it being convenient to just let our friend Travis decide if this actually works) |
src/librustc/dep_graph/query.rs
Outdated
@@ -36,7 +36,7 @@ impl DepGraphQuery { | |||
} | |||
|
|||
DepGraphQuery { | |||
graph: graph, | |||
graph, | |||
indices: indices |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This can also be shortened.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
hm, yes, regex should've probably been (\w+): \1,?\n
rather than (\w+): \1,
Is there a reason this is limited to just librustc? It seems appropriate to either run this everywhere or nowhere. |
It seemed less "dramatic", and less likely to collide with other PRs? Maybe that's not very compelling. |
I'm happy with starting with just librustc and then expanding to others. |
377425d
to
83d5fbf
Compare
(Travis passed on the initial submission; I've added a newline to the regex (to catch cases like the one Tim points out), reapplied (on master), and force-pushed.) |
Quick shell command to do the same thing as the Python version:
If you want to specify a directory, put it right after the |
@bors try |
…=<try> use field init shorthand in src/librustc/ Commentary on #37340 [suggested](#37340 (comment)) using the new field init syntax in the compiler. Do we care about this? If so, here's a pull request for the librustc/ directory. While [`rustfmt` might do this in the future](#37340 (comment)), in the meantime, some simple Python will do: ```python #!/usr/bin/env python3 import os, re, sys OPPORTUNITY = re.compile(r" (\w+): \1,?\n") def field_init_shorthand_substitution(filename): with open(filename) as f: text = f.read() revised = OPPORTUNITY.sub(r" \1,\n", text) with open(filename, 'w') as f: f.write(revised) def substitute_in_directory(path): for dirname, _subdirs, basenames in os.walk(path): for basename in basenames: field_init_shorthand_substitution(os.path.join(dirname, basename)) if __name__ == "__main__": substitute_in_directory(sys.argv[1]) ``` **Update 3 July**: edited the search (respectively replace) regex to ` (\w+): \1,?\n` (` \1,\n`) from ` (\w+): \1,` (` \1,`)
☀️ Test successful - status-travis |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit 83d5fbf has been approved by |
For the record, try builds should not be used except to obtain artifacts for cargobomb -- they don't actually test much more than the standard PR builder (just dist, I think). |
@Mark-Simulacrum thanks for the clarification! Going forward, should I just r+ and let travis catch any issues then? |
@bors: retry |
1 similar comment
@bors: retry |
🔒 Merge conflict |
The field init shorthand syntax was stabilized in 1.17.0 (aebd94f); we are now free to use it in the compiler.
83d5fbf
to
f668999
Compare
I don't understand why Git seems to think master's deletion of the libcompiler_builtins directory is a merge conflict?
Anyway, rebased and force-pushed. |
@bors r+ |
📌 Commit f668999 has been approved by |
…=estebank use field init shorthand in src/librustc/ Commentary on #37340 [suggested](#37340 (comment)) using the new field init syntax in the compiler. Do we care about this? If so, here's a pull request for the librustc/ directory. While [`rustfmt` might do this in the future](#37340 (comment)), in the meantime, some simple Python will do: ```python #!/usr/bin/env python3 import os, re, sys OPPORTUNITY = re.compile(r" (\w+): \1,?\n") def field_init_shorthand_substitution(filename): with open(filename) as f: text = f.read() revised = OPPORTUNITY.sub(r" \1,\n", text) with open(filename, 'w') as f: f.write(revised) def substitute_in_directory(path): for dirname, _subdirs, basenames in os.walk(path): for basename in basenames: field_init_shorthand_substitution(os.path.join(dirname, basename)) if __name__ == "__main__": substitute_in_directory(sys.argv[1]) ``` **Update 3 July**: edited the search (respectively replace) regex to ` (\w+): \1,?\n` (` \1,\n`) from ` (\w+): \1,` (` \1,`)
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
Like rust-lang#43008 (f668999), but _much more aggressive_.
…Mark-Simulacrum use field init shorthand EVERYWHERE Like #43008 (f668999), but [(lacking reasons to be more timid)](#43008 (comment)) _much more aggressive_. r? @Mark-Simulacrum
…Mark-Simulacrum use field init shorthand EVERYWHERE Like #43008 (f668999), but [(lacking reasons to be more timid)](rust-lang/rust#43008 (comment)) _much more aggressive_. r? @Mark-Simulacrum
Commentary on #37340 suggested using the new field init syntax in the compiler. Do we care about this? If so, here's a pull request for the librustc/ directory. While
rustfmt
might do this in the future, in the meantime, some simple Python will do:Update 3 July: edited the search (respectively replace) regex to
(\w+): \1,?\n
(\1,\n
) from(\w+): \1,
(\1,
)