fix: Fix diverging destructuring assignments #20179
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
They need to return `!`, unlike diverging ordinary assignments. See the comment in the code.
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Veykril
approved these changes
Jul 6, 2025
Comment on lines
+774
to
+777
| // Ordinary assignments always return `()`, even when they diverge. | ||
| // However, rustc lowers destructuring assignments into blocks, and blocks return `!` if they have no tail | ||
| // expression and they diverge. Therefore, we have to do the same here, even though we don't lower destructuring | ||
| // assignments into blocks. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Huh, I wonder if that was an intended side effect in rustc.
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
They need to return
!, unlike diverging ordinary assignments. See the comment in the code.Fixes #20176.