`EarlyBinder::new` -> `EarlyBinder::bind`
for consistency with `Binder::bind`. it may make sense to also add `EarlyBinder::dummy` in places where we know that no parameters exist, but I left that out of this PR.
r? `@jackh726` `@kylematsuda`
Explicitly reject negative and reservation drop impls
Fixes#110858
It doesn't really make sense for a type to have a `!Drop` impl. Or at least, I don't want us to implicitly assign a meaning to it by the way the compiler *currently* handles it (incompletely), and rather I would like to see a PR (or an RFC...) assign a meaning to `!Drop` if we actually wanted one for it.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
stop using `ty::UnevaluatedConst` directly
best reviewed commit by commit.
simplifies #99798 because we now don't have to expand `ty::UnevaluatedConst` to `ty::Const`.
I also remember some other places where using `ty::UnevaluatedConst` directly was annoying and caused issues, though I don't quite remember what they were rn '^^
r? `@oli-obk` cc `@JulianKnodt`
