-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 13.2k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add support for for await
loops
#118847
Merged
Merged
Add support for for await
loops
#118847
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
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.
Instead of making the
await
part of thefor
, I think I would prefer we made it part of thePat
in the AST and reject it later in any pattern that isn't in a for loop. The current syntax implies thatlet await foo = future;
would be valid. It isn't but we should likely handle it more gracefully. Particularly if there's any possibility that we'll allow people to writefor Struct { await foo } in stream
ormatch foo { Some(await foo) => {}, None => {} }
. (This is akin to what happened withif let
that initially was a construct of theif
and then it became an expression in its own right.)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.
I think I disagree with that approach.
I don't think that we need to tangle up parsing
async PAT
in this PR. First of all, it makes lowering offor await
in the HIR more difficult, since it makes the "is this afor await
pattern" condition slightly more non-local (we need to peel off an async pat), and requires complicating the lowering of patterns with a new unreachable arms and/or error recovery.Second, we discussed at length in a recent wg-async meeting that the idea of a
async PAT
syntax is not desirable at the moment. We also discussed at length whether we even want to call itfor await
, instead of something likeasync for
,for async
, etc. If we were to move to that, we'd have to undo all of thePatKind::Async
here, too.Last, if we later find that people are accidentally writing
let await PAT = EXPR;
enough that diagnostics should mention them specifically, then we can handle the recovery for that typo separately and without having to represent it in the AST. Simply eagerly erroring inparse_pat_with_range_pat
ifmay_recover && check_kw(kw::Await)
would be simple enough, I think.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.
@eholk's comment above (#118847 (comment)) discusses a bit about how
for await
shouldn't be conceptually thought of asfor (await PAT)
but as a totally separate kind of loop, and I tend to agree with that.I do think that this PR should stay on the simple side -- I find that unnecessarily making parsing more general to carve out space for AST that doesn't exist is a good way to introduce new bugs, and make things like exhaustively matching on
PatKind
s that are only expected on an error path a bit more tedious.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.
(also, I can also see some issues with pattern macro fragments either not matching
async PAT
correctly, or going from pass->fail if we're not careful, because currentlyasync
is not allowed innonterminal_may_begin_with
for pat fragments)