Skip to content

Conversation

JohnTitor
Copy link
Member

Fixes #72404
r? @estebank

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Aug 1, 2020
Copy link
Contributor

@estebank estebank left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sorry, I thought I had replied to this already, but alas clearly I don't know how to use mobile github.

I have a more comprehensible handling of this in #75372.

(param.span.shrink_to_lo(), "'a, ".to_string())
if param.name.ident().as_str().contains("'a") {
// Do not add duplicate lifetime.
None
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I know there's a function somewhere to get the next one letter name. Could we use that instead? On mobile so I can't find it back can look for it tomorrow.

help: consider making the bound lifetime-generic with a new `'a` lifetime
|
LL | struct S<'a>(&'a dyn for<'a> Fn(&'a X) -> &X<'a>);
| ^^^^^^^ ^^^^^ ^^^^^
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could we also deal with this case and suggest for<'b> instead?

@JohnTitor
Copy link
Member Author

I have a more comprehensible handling of this in #75372.

At a glance, it looks greater than this, I'm going to close this in favor of the above. Thanks for the follow-up!

@JohnTitor JohnTitor closed this Aug 11, 2020
@JohnTitor JohnTitor deleted the dont-sugg-dup-a branch August 11, 2020 06:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in 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.

On missing HRLT annotation, we sometimes provide a slightly incorrect suggestion

3 participants