`BindingAnnotation` refactor
* `ast::BindingMode` is deleted and replaced with `hir::BindingAnnotation` (which is moved to `ast`)
* `BindingAnnotation` is changed from an enum to a tuple struct e.g. `BindingAnnotation(ByRef::No, Mutability::Mut)`
* Associated constants added for convenience `BindingAnnotation::{NONE, REF, MUT, REF_MUT}`
One goal is to make it more clear that `BindingAnnotation` merely represents syntax `ref mut` and not the actual binding mode. This was especially confusing since we had `ast::BindingMode`->`hir::BindingAnnotation`->`thir::BindingMode`.
I wish there were more symmetry between `ByRef` and `Mutability` (variant) naming (maybe `Mutable::Yes`?), and I also don't love how long the name `BindingAnnotation` is, but this seems like the best compromise. Ideas welcome.
Change `span_suggestion` (and variants) to take `impl ToString` rather
than `String` for the suggested code, as this simplifies the
requirements on the diagnostic derive.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
[borrowck] Fix help on mutating &self in async fns
Previously, when rustc was provided an async function that tried to
mutate through a shared reference to an implicit self (as shown in the
ui test), rustc would suggest modifying the parameter signature
to `&mut` + the fully qualified name of the ty (in the case of the repro
`S`). If a user modified their code to match the suggestion, the
compiler would not accept it.
This commit modifies the suggestion so that when rustc is provided the
ui test that is also attached in this commit, it suggests (correctly)
`&mut self`. We try to be careful about distinguishing between implicit
and explicit self annotations, since the latter seem to be handled
correctly already.
This is my first PR here so I'm pretty sure I probably missed something/could use better terminology. I also didn't try to make the match exhaustive since implicit self is the only real special case that I need to handle (that I'm aware of), and I'm pretty sure there's a cleaner way to do this so any advice would be greatly appreciated! (I'm also not terribly confident about how I wrote the ui tests)
here is your cc as requested `@compiler-errors`
This is an attempt to fix#93093
Previously, when rustc was provided an async function that tried to
mutate through a shared reference to an implicit self (as shown in the
ui test), rustc would suggest modifying the parameter signature
to `&mut` + the fully qualified name of the ty (in the case of the repro
`S`). If a user modified their code to match the suggestion, the
compiler would not accept it.
This commit modifies the suggestion so that when rustc is provided the
ui test that is also attached in this commit, it suggests (correctly)
`&mut self`. We try to be careful about distinguishing between implicit
and explicit self annotations, since the latter seem to be handled
correctly already.
Fixesrust-lang/rust#93093
This is the same idea as #92533, but for `AssocItem` instead
of `VariantDef`/`FieldDef`.
With this change, we no longer have any uses of
`#[stable_hasher(project(...))]`
Region info is completely unnecessary for upvar capture kind computation
and is only needed to create the final upvar tuple ty. Doing so makes
creation of UpvarCapture very cheap and expose further cleanup opportunity.
