Improve documentation of needless_range_loop
#12701
Conversation
|
Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @dswij (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks. Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (
|
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
r? blyxyas |
| @@ -61,6 +61,7 @@ error: the loop variable `i` is only used to index `vec2` | |||
| LL | for i in 0..vec.len() { | |||
| | ^^^^^^^^^^^^ | |||
| | | |||
| = note: suggestion might skip expected iterations if `vec2.iter().count()` is less than `vec.len()` | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
If the suggestion skips some iteration, then that means it's a change in behavior. Wouldn't it be a bad suggestion issue and should be labeled as such?
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
Hey this is triage, I'm closing this due to inactivity. If you want to continue this implementation, you're welcome to create a new PR. Thank you for the time, you already put into this! Interested parties are welcome to pick this implementation up as well :) @rustbot label +S-inactive-closed -S-waiting-on-author -S-waiting-on-review |
rustbot
added
S-inactive-closed
fixes #6930 6930
Add a note telling the user that the suggestions might remove (maybe expected) iterations in for loop.
changelog: [
needless_range_loop]: Improve documentation