20c1fa1770
Make "missing field" error message more natural
```rust
struct A {
x: i32,
y: i32,
z: i32,
}
fn main() {
A { };
}
```
```
error[E0063]: missing fields `x`, `y`, `z` in initializer of `A`
--> src/main.rs:8:5
|
8 | A { };
| ^ missing `x`, `y`, `z`
```
This error is now:
```
error[E0063]: missing fields `x`, `y` and `z` in initializer of `A`
--> src/main.rs:8:5
|
8 | A { };
| ^ missing `x`, `y` and `z`
```
I thought it looked nicer and more natural this way. Also, if there is >3 fields missing, there is an "and" as well ("missing \`x\`, \`y\`, \`z\` *and* 1 other field"), but for <=3 there is not. As such it improves consistency too.
As for the implementation, originally I ended up with a chunky `push_str` algorithm but then I figured I could just do the formatting manually since it's just 3 field names at maximum. It is comparatively readable.
As a sidenote, one thing I was wondering about is, isn't there more cases where you have a list of things like field names? Maybe this whole thing can at some point later be made into a more general function to be used in multiple areas.
|
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||
| README.md | ||
For high-level intro to how type checking works in rustc, see the type checking chapter of the rustc dev guide.