Skip to content

Add error code flags #34401

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jun 25, 2016
Merged

Add error code flags #34401

merged 1 commit into from
Jun 25, 2016

Conversation

GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

@@ -947,6 +945,8 @@ position that needs that trait. For example, when the following code is
compiled:

```compile_fail
#![feature(on_unimplemented)]

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Why did these examples start requiring #![feature(on_unimplemented)] but still not get error code annotations?

Copy link
Member Author

@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez Jun 22, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Because in order to use #[rustc_on_unimplemented], you need to enable the feature. However, the code throws E0230, so I can't add E0272. The same goes for E0273 and E0274.

@brson
Copy link
Contributor

brson commented Jun 24, 2016

@bors r+

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 24, 2016

📌 Commit 8f987ab has been approved by brson

@bors
Copy link
Collaborator

bors commented Jun 24, 2016

⌛ Testing commit 8f987ab with merge d011290...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jun 24, 2016
@bors bors merged commit 8f987ab into rust-lang:master Jun 25, 2016
@GuillaumeGomez GuillaumeGomez deleted the err-codes branch June 25, 2016 09:20
// nothing here
```compile_fail,E0269
fn abracada_FAIL() -> String {
"this won't work".to_string();
Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Is this change intentional?
It seems the source code does not match the following explanation text anymore.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Ah damn, i didn't pay attention to the explanation. Want to fix it?

Copy link

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Sorry, it don't have enough time/knowledge to fix this in short time frame.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

I'll then. Thanks for notifying me!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants