Skip to content

Suggest naming types before using explicit type names #14996

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom
Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Suggest naming types before using explicit type names #14996

wants to merge 1 commit into from
+113 −9

Conversation

samueltardieu
Copy link
Member

@samueltardieu samueltardieu commented Jun 6, 2025 •
edited by rustbot
Loading

missing_transmute_annotations will suggest naming the origin and destination types if they do not have explicit names already.

changelog: [missing_transmute_annotations]: suggest giving origin and destination types a name in order to ascribe the transmute call

Fixes #14984

@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jun 6, 2025

r? @Alexendoo

rustbot has assigned @Alexendoo.
They will have a look at your PR within the next two weeks and either review your PR or reassign to another reviewer.

Use r? to explicitly pick a reviewer

@rustbot rustbot added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Jun 6, 2025
@samueltardieu
Copy link
Member Author

r? clippy

@rustbot rustbot assigned blyxyas and unassigned Alexendoo Jul 28, 2025
blyxyas
blyxyas requested changes Aug 18, 2025
View reviewed changes
Copy link
Member

@blyxyas blyxyas left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

What do you think about this improvement? If the transmute argument is something like x, it doesn't make that much sense calling it "the origin type" and not just mentioning x

@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status) and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties labels Aug 18, 2025
@samueltardieu samueltardieu requested a review from blyxyas August 21, 2025 16:30
@rustbot rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action from the author. (Use `@rustbot ready` to update this status) labels Aug 21, 2025
@samueltardieu
Copy link
Member Author

What do you think about this improvement? If the transmute argument is something like x, it doesn't make that much sense calling it "the origin type" and not just mentioning x

Good idea. I've credited you in the commit message as well.

@samueltardieu @blyxyas
Suggest naming types before using explicit type names
1e85800 
`missing_transmute_annotations` will suggest naming the origin and
destination types if they do not have explicit names already.

Co-authored-by: Alejandra González <blyxyas@gmail.com>
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Reviewers

@blyxyas blyxyas Awaiting requested review from blyxyas

Requested changes must be addressed to merge this pull request.

Assignees

@blyxyas blyxyas

Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

missing_transmute_annotations suggests impl Future which is not allowed
4 participants
@samueltardieu @rustbot @blyxyas @Alexendoo