Vadim Petrochenkov
Vadim Petrochenkov
#### Change description for lang team Early name resolution has a number of ambiguity errors that are reported when a name declaration that is "unreliable" in some sense (e.g. comes...
@traviscross >Do we not consider these declarations ambiguous, or what's the rule we're using to decide to not lint here? They are also ambiguous, this part of the lint is...
@rustbot second
From the *compiler* point of view this seems ok to me, the target is very similar to what already exists and won't bring additional maintenance burden. I guess adding it...
I would prefer the ```rust fn f() = EXPR; ``` alternative, if we are doing this at all. It can work for both block-like bodies ```rust fn f() = match...
The intent is to report a lint if it can be addressed by the person encountering it, and not report it if the code comes from third party and cannot...
r? @petrochenkov
@rustbot author (I don't have rights to change labels directly here.)
When I started reading https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/116831 my first reaction was "if `NodeTag` is so special, then it's fine to use `allow`", but the problem is that you cannot actually apply `allow`...
Warning on `#[repr(C)] #[non_exhaustive]` was an explicit lang team decision, so I'll send this back to lang team for reconsidering.