chore(useless_vec): clean-up #15952
chore(useless_vec): clean-up #15952
Conversation
rustbot
added
needs-fcp
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? @Alexendoo rustbot has assigned @Alexendoo. Use |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
clippy_utils/src/lib.rs
Outdated
| pub fn is_allowed_vec_method(e: &Expr<'_>) -> bool { | ||
| if let ExprKind::MethodCall(path, _, [], _) = e.kind { | ||
| matches!(path.ident.name, sym::as_ptr | sym::is_empty | sym::len) | ||
| } else { | ||
| false | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This doesn't check that the method call actually is on a Vec, but I'm aware that would be redundant for the current callsites. Perhaps something more like more like Symbol -> bool would be fine, or it could be inlined
But if it's kept it needs a rename since which names are allowed doesn't make sense out of the original context
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great point! I stripped it all the way down to a const array, which turned out to work rather nicely, even allowing to simplify the logic in ptr_arg.
I think the new name is pretty descriptive? Lmk what you think
will improve the diff for the next commit
- move `is_allowed_vec_method` (a stripped-down version of it, anyway, as the function doesn't make sense as is out of context) to utils, as it's shared between `useless_vec` and `ptr_arg` - add another test for non-standard macro brace case - rm unneeded `allow`s - rm duplicated tests - add comments to some tests
|
This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
3 participants
changelog: none