Skip to content
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

Do not propose to elide lifetimes if this causes an ambiguity #13929

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

Conversation

samueltardieu
Copy link
Contributor

Some lifetimes in function return types are not bound to concrete content and can be set arbitrarily. Clippy should not propose to replace them by the default '_ lifetime if such a lifetime cannot be determined unambigously.

I added a field to the LifetimeChecker and Usage to flag lifetimes that cannot be replaced by default ones, but it feels a bit hacky.

Fix #13923

Some lifetimes in function return types are not bound to concrete
content and can be set arbitrarily. Clippy should not propose to replace
them by the default `'_` lifetime if such a lifetime cannot be
determined unambigously.
@rustbot
Copy link
Collaborator

rustbot commented Jan 2, 2025

r? @xFrednet

rustbot has assigned @xFrednet.
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 Jan 2, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

False positive from clippy::needless_lifetimes
3 participants