Skip to content

Make needless_range_loop not applicable to structures without iter method #3789

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 2 commits into from
Feb 21, 2019

Conversation

bzzzzzz
Copy link
Contributor

@bzzzzzz bzzzzzz commented Feb 20, 2019

Fixes #3788

Now we will start lint indexed structure only if it has known iter or iter_mut method implemented.

@flip1995 flip1995 added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties label Feb 20, 2019
Copy link
Contributor

@oli-obk oli-obk left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

You need to run rustfmt to pass travis

@oli-obk
Copy link
Contributor

oli-obk commented Feb 21, 2019

@bors r+

Thanks!

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 21, 2019

📌 Commit 7767b3a has been approved by oli-obk

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 21, 2019

⌛ Testing commit 7767b3a with merge a5c16e5...

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Feb 21, 2019
Make needless_range_loop not applicable to structures without iter method

Fixes #3788

Now we will start lint indexed structure only if it has known iter or iter_mut method implemented.
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Feb 21, 2019

☀️ Test successful - checks-travis, status-appveyor
Approved by: oli-obk
Pushing a5c16e5 to master...

@bors bors merged commit 7767b3a into rust-lang:master Feb 21, 2019
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants