os-rust/tests/ui/issues/issue-59756.stderr

error[E0308]: try expression alternatives have incompatible types
  --> $DIR/issue-59756.rs:13:5
   |
LL |     foo()?
   |     ^^^^^^ expected enum `std::result::Result`, found struct `A`
   |
   = note: expected enum `std::result::Result<A, B>`
            found struct `A`
help: try removing this `?`
   |
LL |     foo()
   |         --
help: try using a variant of the expected enum
   |
LL |     Ok(foo()?)
   |

error: aborting due to 1 previous error

For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0308`.
Add test demonstrating existing behaviour. This commit adds a test that demonstrates the compiler's current behaviour when a function attempts to return a value that was unwrapped by a `?` operator when the omission of `?` would have made the code compile. 2019-04-08 00:19:58 +02:00			`error[E0308]: try expression alternatives have incompatible types`
Suggest removing `?` to resolve type errors. This commit adds a suggestion to remove the `?` from expressions if removing the `?` would resolve a type error. 2019-04-10 23:26:45 +02:00			`--> $DIR/issue-59756.rs:13:5`
Add test demonstrating existing behaviour. This commit adds a test that demonstrates the compiler's current behaviour when a function attempts to return a value that was unwrapped by a `?` operator when the omission of `?` would have made the code compile. 2019-04-08 00:19:58 +02:00			`\|`
			`LL \| foo()?`
Emit coercion suggestions in more places Fixes #66910 We have several different kinds of suggestions we can try to make when type coercion fails. However, we were previously only emitting these suggestions from `demand_coerce_diag`. This resulted in the compiler failing to emit applicable suggestions in several different cases, such as when the implicit return value of a function had the wrong type. This commit adds a new `emit_coerce_suggestions` method, which tries to emit a number of related suggestions. This method is called from both `demand_coerce_diag` and `CoerceMany::coerce_inner`, which covers a much wider range of cases than before. We now suggest using `.await` in more cases where it is applicable, among other improvements. 2019-12-03 20:32:50 -05:00			\| ^^^^^^ expected enum `std::result::Result`, found struct `A`
Add test demonstrating existing behaviour. This commit adds a test that demonstrates the compiler's current behaviour when a function attempts to return a value that was unwrapped by a `?` operator when the omission of `?` would have made the code compile. 2019-04-08 00:19:58 +02:00			`\|`
Specific labels when referring to "expected" and "found" types 2019-11-13 14:16:56 -08:00			= note: expected enum `std::result::Result<A, B>`
			found struct `A`
Emit coercion suggestions in more places Fixes #66910 We have several different kinds of suggestions we can try to make when type coercion fails. However, we were previously only emitting these suggestions from `demand_coerce_diag`. This resulted in the compiler failing to emit applicable suggestions in several different cases, such as when the implicit return value of a function had the wrong type. This commit adds a new `emit_coerce_suggestions` method, which tries to emit a number of related suggestions. This method is called from both `demand_coerce_diag` and `CoerceMany::coerce_inner`, which covers a much wider range of cases than before. We now suggest using `.await` in more cases where it is applicable, among other improvements. 2019-12-03 20:32:50 -05:00			help: try removing this `?`
			`\|`
			`LL \| foo()`
			`\| --`
			`help: try using a variant of the expected enum`
			`\|`
			`LL \| Ok(foo()?)`
			`\|`
Add test demonstrating existing behaviour. This commit adds a test that demonstrates the compiler's current behaviour when a function attempts to return a value that was unwrapped by a `?` operator when the omission of `?` would have made the code compile. 2019-04-08 00:19:58 +02:00
Manual find replace updates 2023-11-21 20:26:31 +01:00			`error: aborting due to 1 previous error`
Add test demonstrating existing behaviour. This commit adds a test that demonstrates the compiler's current behaviour when a function attempts to return a value that was unwrapped by a `?` operator when the omission of `?` would have made the code compile. 2019-04-08 00:19:58 +02:00
			For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0308`.