OpenE2K/rust
2
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Fix docs formatting for thir::pattern::_match

Browse Source 
A list was being rendered all on one line and there were other
formatting issues as well.
This commit is contained in:
Camelid 2020-11-25 12:05:04 -08:00
parent 1c389ffeff
commit c5c70d4017
1 changed files with 31 additions and 22 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

53
compiler/rustc_mir_build/src/thir/pattern/_match.rs
View File

@ -1,12 +1,16 @@
//! Note: tests specific to this file can be found in:
//! - ui/pattern/usefulness
//! - ui/or-patterns
//! - ui/consts/const_in_pattern
//! - ui/rfc-2008-non-exhaustive
//! - ui/half-open-range-patterns
//! - probably many others
//!
//! - `ui/pattern/usefulness`
//! - `ui/or-patterns`
//! - `ui/consts/const_in_pattern`
//! - `ui/rfc-2008-non-exhaustive`
//! - `ui/half-open-range-patterns`
//! - probably many others
//!
//! I (Nadrieril) prefer to put new tests in `ui/pattern/usefulness` unless there's a specific
//! reason not to, for example if they depend on a particular feature like or_patterns.
//! reason not to, for example if they depend on a particular feature like `or_patterns`.
//!
//! -----
//!
//! This file includes the logic for exhaustiveness and usefulness checking for
//! pattern-matching. Specifically, given a list of patterns for a type, we can
@ -14,8 +18,8 @@
//! (a) the patterns cover every possible constructor for the type (exhaustiveness)
//! (b) each pattern is necessary (usefulness)
//!
//! The algorithm implemented here is a modified version of the one described in:
//! <http://moscova.inria.fr/~maranget/papers/warn/index.html>
//! The algorithm implemented here is a modified version of the one described in
//! [this paper](http://moscova.inria.fr/~maranget/papers/warn/index.html).
//! However, to save future implementors from reading the original paper, we
//! summarise the algorithm here to hopefully save time and be a little clearer
//! (without being so rigorous).
@ -131,18 +135,22 @@
//!
//! This returns zero or more new pattern-stacks, as follows. We look at the pattern `p_1`
//! on top of the stack, and we have four cases:
//! 1.1. `p_1 = c(r_1, .., r_a)`, i.e. the top of the stack has constructor `c`. We
//! push onto the stack the arguments of this constructor, and return the result:
//! r_1, .., r_a, p_2, .., p_n
//! 1.2. `p_1 = c'(r_1, .., r_a')` where `c ≠ c'`. We discard the current stack and
//! return nothing.
//!
//! 1.1. `p_1 = c(r_1, .., r_a)`, i.e. the top of the stack has constructor `c`. We
//! push onto the stack the arguments of this constructor, and return the result:
//! `r_1, .., r_a, p_2, .., p_n`
//!
//! 1.2. `p_1 = c'(r_1, .., r_a')` where `c ≠ c'`. We discard the current stack and
//! return nothing.
//!
//! 1.3. `p_1 = _`. We push onto the stack as many wildcards as the constructor `c` has
//! arguments (its arity), and return the resulting stack:
//! _, .., _, p_2, .., p_n
//! `_, .., _, p_2, .., p_n`
//!
//! 1.4. `p_1 = r_1 | r_2`. We expand the OR-pattern and then recurse on each resulting
//! stack:
//! S(c, (r_1, p_2, .., p_n))
//! S(c, (r_2, p_2, .., p_n))
//! - `S(c, (r_1, p_2, .., p_n))`
//! - `S(c, (r_2, p_2, .., p_n))`
//!
//! 2. We can pop a wildcard off the top of the stack. This is called `S(_, p)`, where `p` is
//! a pattern-stack. Note: the paper calls this `D(p)`.
@ -157,8 +165,8 @@
//! p_2, .., p_n
//! 2.3. `p_1 = r_1 | r_2`. We expand the OR-pattern and then recurse on each resulting
//! stack.
//! S(_, (r_1, p_2, .., p_n))
//! S(_, (r_2, p_2, .., p_n))
//! - `S(_, (r_1, p_2, .., p_n))`
//! - `S(_, (r_2, p_2, .., p_n))`
//!
//! Note that the OR-patterns are not always used directly in Rust, but are used to derive the
//! exhaustive integer matching rules, so they're written here for posterity.
@ -198,7 +206,7 @@
//! ]
//! ```
//!
//! and `p` is [Some(false), 0], then we don't care about row 2 since we know `p` only
//! and `p` is `[Some(false), 0]`, then we don't care about row 2 since we know `p` only
//! matches values that row 2 doesn't. For row 1 however, we need to dig into the
//! arguments of `Some` to know whether some new value is covered. So we compute
//! `U([[true, _]], [false, 0])`.
@ -222,7 +230,7 @@
//! ]
//! ```
//!
//! and `p` is [_, false, _], the `Some` constructor doesn't appear in `P`. So if we
//! and `p` is `[_, false, _]`, the `Some` constructor doesn't appear in `P`. So if we
//! only had row 2, we'd know that `p` is useful. However row 1 starts with a
//! wildcard, so we need to check whether `U([[true, _]], [false, 1])`.
//!
@ -243,7 +251,7 @@
//! ]
//! ```
//!
//! and `p` is [_, false], both `None` and `Some` constructors appear in the first
//! and `p` is `[_, false]`, both `None` and `Some` constructors appear in the first
//! components of `P`. We will therefore try popping both constructors in turn: we
//! compute `U([[true, _]], [_, false])` for the `Some` constructor, and `U([[false]],
//! [false])` for the `None` constructor. The first case returns true, so we know that
@ -294,6 +302,7 @@
//! + If some constructors are missing from the matrix, it turns out we don't need to do
//! anything special (because we know none of the integers are actually wildcards: i.e., we
//! can't span wildcards using ranges).
use self::Constructor::*;
use self::SliceKind::*;
use self::Usefulness::*;