Home Original page

Clarify that anonymous consts still do introduce a new scope by Manishearth · Pull Request #126652 · rust-lang/rust

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

T-compiler

Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

labels

Jun 19, 2024

Urgau

@Manishearth

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors

Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.

and removed S-waiting-on-review

Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties.

labels

Jun 20, 2024

bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Jun 20, 2024 
…iaskrgr

Rollup of 5 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#126620 (Actually taint InferCtxt when a fulfillment error is emitted)
 - rust-lang#126649 (Fix `feature = "nightly"` in the new trait solver)
 - rust-lang#126652 (Clarify that anonymous consts still do introduce a new scope)
 - rust-lang#126703 (reword the hint::blackbox non-guarantees)
 - rust-lang#126708 (Minimize `can_begin_literal_maybe_minus` usage)

r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup

rust-timer added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request

Jun 20, 2024 
Rollup merge of rust-lang#126652 - Manishearth:anon-const-scope, r=bjorn3,Urgau

Clarify that anonymous consts still do introduce a new scope

See rust-lang#120363 (comment)

This error message is misleading: it's trying to say that `const _ : () = ...` is a workaround for the lint, but by saying that anonymous constants are treated as being in the parent scope, it makes them appear useless for scope-hiding.

They *are* useful for scope-hiding, they are simply treated as part of the parent scope when it comes to this lint.