-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1.7k
Stuttter lint #994
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
Stuttter lint #994
Conversation
I'm not sure I like most of the fallout for this one 😕. |
jup :) the function ones are pretty bad but some function things like |
} else { | ||
HirVec::new() | ||
} | ||
})); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why removing the function here? I like closures for small stuffs but not so much for longer functions.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
well I can change it back to a function, but we should maybe consider a lint that lints .filter_map(x).flat_map(y)
and .filter(z).flat_map(y)
updated to not lint on private items. |
apparently we need another rustup |
travis hickuped, but |
rebased, but sth is wrong with regex-macros |
It's been a few days, I've made a PR but they haven't published a new version. |
They just did. @mcarton do you want to update our dependencies? |
travis likes this now |
But I don't 😧. IMO the potential for false positive is still huge. |
I'm ... not sure. I don't like the fallout. I'm okay with Allow. |
I'm also a bit worried about swamping the output. The severity of the reported problem is low, and the chance for this lint to trigger is high. So even with a fairly low rate of false positive, we will still swamp out reports of higher-severity problems. As an |
done |
Thanks. |
fixes #904