style guide: add let-chain rules #139456
Merged
style guide: add let-chain rules #139456
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
|
rustbot has assigned @joshtriplett. Use |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
Some changes occurred in src/doc/style-guide cc @rust-lang/style |
joshtriplett
reviewed
Apr 6, 2025
Comment on lines
+597
to
+598
| && let Some(relatively_long_thing) = | ||
| a_long_long_long_long_long_long_really_reallllllllllyyyyyyy_long_expression |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Shouldn't the = be on the second line here, given the explanation above of "prefer to break before the ="?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good catch
I think the "before operator" prescription may have been a snippet of text we missed in #113145 (and some more context linked in rust-lang/style-team#179) when we changed the text to match the existing behavior of always breaking after the operator
for example, rustfmt has long formatted chainless if let Some(....) .... with breaks after = - https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=9f656a763b2b09c559d39568c2d5079c
fn main() {
if let Some(x) = a_long_long_long_long_long_long_really_realllyyyy_long_expressionddddddddddddddddd {
// ..
}
if let Some(relatively_long_thing) =
a_long_long_long_long_long_long_really_realllyyyy_long_expression
{
// ..
}
}is formatted as:
fn main() {
if let Some(x) =
a_long_long_long_long_long_long_really_realllyyyy_long_expressionddddddddddddddddd
{
// ..
}
if let Some(relatively_long_thing) =
a_long_long_long_long_long_long_really_realllyyyy_long_expression
{
// ..
}
}I'm going to change the text in the control flow section to indicate breaking after under the same rationale as we had previously of "bug fix" to the style guide text, but happy to discuss more if you think that's the wrong direction
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Good call. I agree that we should match the existing behavior.
|
@calebcartwright One review comment; with that addressed, r=me. |
calebcartwright
force-pushed
the
style-let-chains-final
branch
from
b7080a1 to
ee07e3f
Compare
|
LGTM, r=me whenever you think it ready. |
|
@bors r=joshtriplett rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
9 tasks
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 7, 2025
Rollup of 5 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#138314 (fix usage of `autodiff` macro with inner functions) - rust-lang#139426 (Make the UnifyKey and UnifyValue imports non-nightly) - rust-lang#139431 (Remove LLVM 18 inline ASM span fallback) - rust-lang#139456 (style guide: add let-chain rules) - rust-lang#139467 (More trivial tweaks) r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 7, 2025
Rollup merge of rust-lang#139456 - calebcartwright:style-let-chains-final, r=joshtriplett style guide: add let-chain rules Reopens rust-lang#110568 refs rust-lang#53667 and I suppose rust-lang#132833 as well This reflects the style rules that the style team had already agreed upon back in 2023, with the addition of literals in the lhs being permissible for single line formatting, and the removal of unnecessary language/example snippets around non-`&&` operators that was a small hiccup in the original PR. It also reflects current formatting behavior implemented in rustfmt (though note that the adjustment to include literals has been implemented & merged, but is still pending a sync to nightly)
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 22, 2025
Stabilize let chains in the 2024 edition # Stabilization report This proposes the stabilization of `let_chains` ([tracking issue], [RFC 2497]) in the [2024 edition] of Rust. [tracking issue]: rust-lang#53667 [RFC 2497]: rust-lang/rfcs#2497 [2024 edition]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/edition-guide/rust-2024/index.html ## What is being stabilized The ability to `&&`-chain `let` statements inside `if` and `while` is being stabilized, allowing intermixture with boolean expressions. The patterns inside the `let` sub-expressions can be irrefutable or refutable. ```Rust struct FnCall<'a> { fn_name: &'a str, args: Vec<i32>, } fn is_legal_ident(s: &str) -> bool { s.chars() .all(|c| ('a'..='z').contains(&c) || ('A'..='Z').contains(&c)) } impl<'a> FnCall<'a> { fn parse(s: &'a str) -> Option<Self> { if let Some((fn_name, after_name)) = s.split_once("(") && !fn_name.is_empty() && is_legal_ident(fn_name) && let Some((args_str, "")) = after_name.rsplit_once(")") { let args = args_str .split(',') .map(|arg| arg.parse()) .collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>(); args.ok().map(|args| FnCall { fn_name, args }) } else { None } } fn exec(&self) -> Option<i32> { let iter = self.args.iter().copied(); match self.fn_name { "sum" => Some(iter.sum()), "max" => iter.max(), "min" => iter.min(), _ => None, } } } fn main() { println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("sum(1,2,3)").unwrap().exec()); println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("max(4,5)").unwrap().exec()); } ``` The feature will only be stabilized for the 2024 edition and future editions. Users of past editions will get an error with a hint to update the edition. closes rust-lang#53667 ## Why 2024 edition? Rust generally tries to ship new features to all editions. So even the oldest editions receive the newest features. However, sometimes a feature requires a breaking change so much that offering the feature without the breaking change makes no sense. This occurs rarely, but has happened in the 2018 edition already with `async` and `await` syntax. It required an edition boundary in order for `async`/`await` to become keywords, and the entire feature foots on those keywords. In the instance of let chains, the issue is the drop order of `if let` chains. If we want `if let` chains to be compatible with `if let`, drop order makes it hard for us to [generate correct MIR]. It would be strange to have different behaviour for `if let ... {}` and `if true && let ... {}`. So it's better to [stay consistent with `if let`]. In edition 2024, [drop order changes] have been introduced to make `if let` temporaries be lived more shortly. These changes also affected `if let` chains. These changes make sense even if you don't take the `if let` chains MIR generation problem into account. But if we want to use them as the solution to the MIR generation problem, we need to restrict let chains to edition 2024 and beyond: for let chains, it's not just a change towards more sensible behaviour, but one required for correct function. [generate correct MIR]: rust-lang#104843 [stay consistent with `if let`]: rust-lang#103293 (comment) [drop order changes]: rust-lang#124085 ## Introduction considerations As edition 2024 is very new, this stabilization PR only makes it possible to use let chains on 2024 without that feature gate, it doesn't mark that feature gate as stable/removed. I would propose to continue offering the `let_chains` feature (behind a feature gate) for a limited time (maybe 3 months after stabilization?) on older editions to allow nightly users to adopt edition 2024 at their own pace. After that, the feature gate shall be marked as *stabilized*, not removed, and replaced by an error on editions 2021 and below. ## Implementation history * History from before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR] that was reverted. * rust-lang#94927 * rust-lang#94951 * rust-lang#94974 * rust-lang#95008 * rust-lang#97295 * rust-lang#98633 * rust-lang#99731 * rust-lang#102394 * rust-lang#100526 * rust-lang#100538 * rust-lang#102998 * rust-lang#103405 * rust-lang#103293 * rust-lang#107251 * rust-lang#110568 * rust-lang#115677 * rust-lang#117743 * rust-lang#117770 * rust-lang#118191 * rust-lang#119554 * rust-lang#129394 * rust-lang#132828 * rust-lang/reference#1179 * rust-lang/reference#1251 * rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 [original stabilization PR]: rust-lang#94927 ## Adoption history ### In the compiler * History before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR]. * rust-lang#115983 * rust-lang#116549 * rust-lang#116688 ### Outside of the compiler * rust-lang/rust-clippy#11750 * [rspack](https://github.com/web-infra-dev/rspack) * [risingwave](https://github.com/risingwavelabs/risingwave) * [dylint](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint) * [convex-backend](https://github.com/get-convex/convex-backend) * [tikv](https://github.com/tikv/tikv) * [Daft](https://github.com/Eventual-Inc/Daft) * [greptimedb](https://github.com/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb) ## Tests <details> ### Intentional restrictions [`partially-macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/partially-macro-expanded.rs), [`macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/macro-expanded.rs): it is possible to use macros to expand to both the pattern and the expression inside a let chain, but not to the entire `let pat = expr` operand. [`parens.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/parens.rs): `if (let pat = expr)` is not allowed in chains [`ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs): `let...else` doesn't support chaining. ### Overlap with match guards [`move-guard-if-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/move-guard-if-let-chain.rs): test for the `use moved value` error working well in match guards. could maybe be extended with let chains that have more than one `let` [`shadowing.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/shadowing.rs): shadowing in if let guards works as expected [`ast-validate-guards.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-validate-guards.rs): let chains in match guards require the match guards feature gate ### Simple cases from the early days PR rust-lang#88642 has added some tests with very simple usages of `let else`, mostly as regression tests to early bugs. [`then-else-blocks.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs) [`ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs) [`issue-90722.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs) [`issue-92145.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs) ### Drop order/MIR scoping tests [`issue-100276.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/issue-100276.rs): let expressions on RHS aren't terminating scopes [`drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs): exhaustive temporary drop order test for various Rust constructs, including let chains [`scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/scope.rs): match guard scoping test [`drop-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/drop-scope.rs): another match guard scoping test, ensuring that temporaries in if-let guards live for the arm [`drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs): if let rescoping on edition 2024, including chains [`mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs): comprehensive drop order test for let chains, distinguishes editions 2021 and 2024. [`issue-99938.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-99938.rs), [`issue-99852.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/issue-99852.rs) both bad MIR ICEs fixed by rust-lang#102394 ### Linting [`irrefutable-lets.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs): trailing and leading irrefutable let patterns get linted for, others don't. The lint is turned off for `else if`. [`issue-121070-let-range.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/lint/issue-121070-let-range.rs): regression test for false positive of the unused parens lint, precedence requires the `()`s here ### Parser: intentional restrictions [`disallowed-positions.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/2128d8df0e858edcbe6a0861bac948b88b7fabc3/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs): `let` in expression context is rejected everywhere except at the top level [`invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs): nested `let` is not allowed (let's are no legal expressions just because they are allowed in `if` and `while`). ### Parser: recovery [`issue-103381.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/issues/issue-103381.rs): Graceful recovery of incorrect chaining of `if` and `if let` [`semi-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/semi-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray `;`s in let chains give nice errors (`if_chain!` users might be accustomed to `;`s) [`deli-ident-issue-1.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/deli-ident-issue-1.rs), [`brace-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray unclosed `{`s in let chains give nice errors and hints ### Misc [`conflicting_bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/conflicting_bindings.rs): the conflicting bindings check also works in let chains. Personally, I'd extend it to chains with multiple let's as well. [`let-chains-attr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/expr/if/attrs/let-chains-attr.rs): attributes work on let chains ### Tangential tests with `#![feature(let_chains)]` [`if-let.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/coverage/branch/if-let.rs): MC/DC coverage tests for let chains [`logical_or_in_conditional.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/mir-opt/building/logical_or_in_conditional.rs): not really about let chains, more about dropping/scoping behaviour of `||` [`stringify.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs): exhaustive test of the `stringify` macro [`expanded-interpolation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs), [`expanded-exhaustive.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs): Exhaustive test of `-Zunpretty` [`diverges-not.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-0000-never_patterns/diverges-not.rs): Never type, mostly tangential to let chains </details> ## Possible future work * There is proposals to allow `if let Pat(bindings) = expr {}` to be written as `if expr is Pat(bindings) {}` ([RFC 3573]). `if let` chains are a natural extension of the already existing `if let` syntax, and I'd argue orthogonal towards `is` syntax. * rust-lang/lang-team#297 * One could have similar chaining inside `let ... else` statements. There is no proposed RFC for this however, nor is it implemented on nightly. * Match guards have the `if` keyword as well, but on stable Rust, they don't support `let`. The functionality is available via an unstable feature ([`if_let_guard` tracking issue]). Stabilization of let chains affects this feature in so far as match guards containing let chains now only need the `if_let_guard` feature gate be present instead of also the `let_chains` feature (NOTE: this PR doesn't implement this simplification, it's left for future work). [RFC 3573]: rust-lang/rfcs#3573 [`if_let_guard` tracking issue]: rust-lang#51114 ## Open questions / blockers - [ ] bad recovery if you don't put a `let` (I don't think this is a blocker): [rust-lang#117977](rust-lang#117977) - [x] An instance where a temporary lives shorter than with nested ifs, breaking compilation: [rust-lang#103476](rust-lang#103476). Personally I don't think this is a blocker either, as it's an edge case. Edit: turns out to not reproduce in edition 2025 any more, due to let rescoping. regression test added in rust-lang#133093 - [x] One should probably extend the tests for `move-guard-if-let-chain.rs` and `conflicting_bindings.rs` to have chains with multiple let's: done in 133093 - [x] Parsing rejection tests: addressed by rust-lang#132828 - [x] [Style](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/346005-t-style/topic/let.20chains.20stabilization.20and.20formatting): rust-lang#139456 - [x] rust-lang#86730 explicitly mentions `let_else`. I think we can live with `let pat = expr` not evaluating as `expr` for macro_rules macros, especially given that `let pat = expr` is not a legal expression anywhere except inside `if` and `while`. - [x] Documentation in the reference: rust-lang/reference#1740 - [x] Add chapter to the Rust 2024 [edition guide]: rust-lang/edition-guide#337 - [x] Resolve open questions on desired drop order. [original reference PR]: rust-lang/reference#1179 [edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/miri
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 23, 2025
Stabilize let chains in the 2024 edition # Stabilization report This proposes the stabilization of `let_chains` ([tracking issue], [RFC 2497]) in the [2024 edition] of Rust. [tracking issue]: rust-lang/rust#53667 [RFC 2497]: rust-lang/rfcs#2497 [2024 edition]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/edition-guide/rust-2024/index.html ## What is being stabilized The ability to `&&`-chain `let` statements inside `if` and `while` is being stabilized, allowing intermixture with boolean expressions. The patterns inside the `let` sub-expressions can be irrefutable or refutable. ```Rust struct FnCall<'a> { fn_name: &'a str, args: Vec<i32>, } fn is_legal_ident(s: &str) -> bool { s.chars() .all(|c| ('a'..='z').contains(&c) || ('A'..='Z').contains(&c)) } impl<'a> FnCall<'a> { fn parse(s: &'a str) -> Option<Self> { if let Some((fn_name, after_name)) = s.split_once("(") && !fn_name.is_empty() && is_legal_ident(fn_name) && let Some((args_str, "")) = after_name.rsplit_once(")") { let args = args_str .split(',') .map(|arg| arg.parse()) .collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>(); args.ok().map(|args| FnCall { fn_name, args }) } else { None } } fn exec(&self) -> Option<i32> { let iter = self.args.iter().copied(); match self.fn_name { "sum" => Some(iter.sum()), "max" => iter.max(), "min" => iter.min(), _ => None, } } } fn main() { println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("sum(1,2,3)").unwrap().exec()); println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("max(4,5)").unwrap().exec()); } ``` The feature will only be stabilized for the 2024 edition and future editions. Users of past editions will get an error with a hint to update the edition. closes #53667 ## Why 2024 edition? Rust generally tries to ship new features to all editions. So even the oldest editions receive the newest features. However, sometimes a feature requires a breaking change so much that offering the feature without the breaking change makes no sense. This occurs rarely, but has happened in the 2018 edition already with `async` and `await` syntax. It required an edition boundary in order for `async`/`await` to become keywords, and the entire feature foots on those keywords. In the instance of let chains, the issue is the drop order of `if let` chains. If we want `if let` chains to be compatible with `if let`, drop order makes it hard for us to [generate correct MIR]. It would be strange to have different behaviour for `if let ... {}` and `if true && let ... {}`. So it's better to [stay consistent with `if let`]. In edition 2024, [drop order changes] have been introduced to make `if let` temporaries be lived more shortly. These changes also affected `if let` chains. These changes make sense even if you don't take the `if let` chains MIR generation problem into account. But if we want to use them as the solution to the MIR generation problem, we need to restrict let chains to edition 2024 and beyond: for let chains, it's not just a change towards more sensible behaviour, but one required for correct function. [generate correct MIR]: rust-lang/rust#104843 [stay consistent with `if let`]: rust-lang/rust#103293 (comment) [drop order changes]: rust-lang/rust#124085 ## Introduction considerations As edition 2024 is very new, this stabilization PR only makes it possible to use let chains on 2024 without that feature gate, it doesn't mark that feature gate as stable/removed. I would propose to continue offering the `let_chains` feature (behind a feature gate) for a limited time (maybe 3 months after stabilization?) on older editions to allow nightly users to adopt edition 2024 at their own pace. After that, the feature gate shall be marked as *stabilized*, not removed, and replaced by an error on editions 2021 and below. ## Implementation history * History from before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR] that was reverted. * rust-lang/rust#94927 * rust-lang/rust#94951 * rust-lang/rust#94974 * rust-lang/rust#95008 * rust-lang/rust#97295 * rust-lang/rust#98633 * rust-lang/rust#99731 * rust-lang/rust#102394 * rust-lang/rust#100526 * rust-lang/rust#100538 * rust-lang/rust#102998 * rust-lang/rust#103405 * rust-lang/rust#103293 * rust-lang/rust#107251 * rust-lang/rust#110568 * rust-lang/rust#115677 * rust-lang/rust#117743 * rust-lang/rust#117770 * rust-lang/rust#118191 * rust-lang/rust#119554 * rust-lang/rust#129394 * rust-lang/rust#132828 * rust-lang/reference#1179 * rust-lang/reference#1251 * rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 [original stabilization PR]: rust-lang/rust#94927 ## Adoption history ### In the compiler * History before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR]. * rust-lang/rust#115983 * rust-lang/rust#116549 * rust-lang/rust#116688 ### Outside of the compiler * rust-lang/rust-clippy#11750 * [rspack](https://github.com/web-infra-dev/rspack) * [risingwave](https://github.com/risingwavelabs/risingwave) * [dylint](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint) * [convex-backend](https://github.com/get-convex/convex-backend) * [tikv](https://github.com/tikv/tikv) * [Daft](https://github.com/Eventual-Inc/Daft) * [greptimedb](https://github.com/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb) ## Tests <details> ### Intentional restrictions [`partially-macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/partially-macro-expanded.rs), [`macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/macro-expanded.rs): it is possible to use macros to expand to both the pattern and the expression inside a let chain, but not to the entire `let pat = expr` operand. [`parens.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/parens.rs): `if (let pat = expr)` is not allowed in chains [`ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs): `let...else` doesn't support chaining. ### Overlap with match guards [`move-guard-if-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/move-guard-if-let-chain.rs): test for the `use moved value` error working well in match guards. could maybe be extended with let chains that have more than one `let` [`shadowing.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/shadowing.rs): shadowing in if let guards works as expected [`ast-validate-guards.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-validate-guards.rs): let chains in match guards require the match guards feature gate ### Simple cases from the early days PR #88642 has added some tests with very simple usages of `let else`, mostly as regression tests to early bugs. [`then-else-blocks.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs) [`ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs) [`issue-90722.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs) [`issue-92145.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs) ### Drop order/MIR scoping tests [`issue-100276.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/issue-100276.rs): let expressions on RHS aren't terminating scopes [`drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs): exhaustive temporary drop order test for various Rust constructs, including let chains [`scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/scope.rs): match guard scoping test [`drop-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/drop-scope.rs): another match guard scoping test, ensuring that temporaries in if-let guards live for the arm [`drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs): if let rescoping on edition 2024, including chains [`mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs): comprehensive drop order test for let chains, distinguishes editions 2021 and 2024. [`issue-99938.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-99938.rs), [`issue-99852.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/issue-99852.rs) both bad MIR ICEs fixed by #102394 ### Linting [`irrefutable-lets.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs): trailing and leading irrefutable let patterns get linted for, others don't. The lint is turned off for `else if`. [`issue-121070-let-range.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/lint/issue-121070-let-range.rs): regression test for false positive of the unused parens lint, precedence requires the `()`s here ### Parser: intentional restrictions [`disallowed-positions.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/2128d8df0e858edcbe6a0861bac948b88b7fabc3/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs): `let` in expression context is rejected everywhere except at the top level [`invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs): nested `let` is not allowed (let's are no legal expressions just because they are allowed in `if` and `while`). ### Parser: recovery [`issue-103381.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/issues/issue-103381.rs): Graceful recovery of incorrect chaining of `if` and `if let` [`semi-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/semi-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray `;`s in let chains give nice errors (`if_chain!` users might be accustomed to `;`s) [`deli-ident-issue-1.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/deli-ident-issue-1.rs), [`brace-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray unclosed `{`s in let chains give nice errors and hints ### Misc [`conflicting_bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/conflicting_bindings.rs): the conflicting bindings check also works in let chains. Personally, I'd extend it to chains with multiple let's as well. [`let-chains-attr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/expr/if/attrs/let-chains-attr.rs): attributes work on let chains ### Tangential tests with `#![feature(let_chains)]` [`if-let.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/coverage/branch/if-let.rs): MC/DC coverage tests for let chains [`logical_or_in_conditional.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/mir-opt/building/logical_or_in_conditional.rs): not really about let chains, more about dropping/scoping behaviour of `||` [`stringify.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs): exhaustive test of the `stringify` macro [`expanded-interpolation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs), [`expanded-exhaustive.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs): Exhaustive test of `-Zunpretty` [`diverges-not.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-0000-never_patterns/diverges-not.rs): Never type, mostly tangential to let chains </details> ## Possible future work * There is proposals to allow `if let Pat(bindings) = expr {}` to be written as `if expr is Pat(bindings) {}` ([RFC 3573]). `if let` chains are a natural extension of the already existing `if let` syntax, and I'd argue orthogonal towards `is` syntax. * rust-lang/lang-team#297 * One could have similar chaining inside `let ... else` statements. There is no proposed RFC for this however, nor is it implemented on nightly. * Match guards have the `if` keyword as well, but on stable Rust, they don't support `let`. The functionality is available via an unstable feature ([`if_let_guard` tracking issue]). Stabilization of let chains affects this feature in so far as match guards containing let chains now only need the `if_let_guard` feature gate be present instead of also the `let_chains` feature (NOTE: this PR doesn't implement this simplification, it's left for future work). [RFC 3573]: rust-lang/rfcs#3573 [`if_let_guard` tracking issue]: rust-lang/rust#51114 ## Open questions / blockers - [ ] bad recovery if you don't put a `let` (I don't think this is a blocker): [#117977](rust-lang/rust#117977) - [x] An instance where a temporary lives shorter than with nested ifs, breaking compilation: [#103476](rust-lang/rust#103476). Personally I don't think this is a blocker either, as it's an edge case. Edit: turns out to not reproduce in edition 2025 any more, due to let rescoping. regression test added in #133093 - [x] One should probably extend the tests for `move-guard-if-let-chain.rs` and `conflicting_bindings.rs` to have chains with multiple let's: done in 133093 - [x] Parsing rejection tests: addressed by rust-lang/rust#132828 - [x] [Style](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/346005-t-style/topic/let.20chains.20stabilization.20and.20formatting): rust-lang/rust#139456 - [x] rust-lang/rust#86730 explicitly mentions `let_else`. I think we can live with `let pat = expr` not evaluating as `expr` for macro_rules macros, especially given that `let pat = expr` is not a legal expression anywhere except inside `if` and `while`. - [x] Documentation in the reference: rust-lang/reference#1740 - [x] Add chapter to the Rust 2024 [edition guide]: rust-lang/edition-guide#337 - [x] Resolve open questions on desired drop order. [original reference PR]: rust-lang/reference#1179 [edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide
github-actions bot
pushed a commit
to rust-lang/rustc-dev-guide
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 24, 2025
Stabilize let chains in the 2024 edition # Stabilization report This proposes the stabilization of `let_chains` ([tracking issue], [RFC 2497]) in the [2024 edition] of Rust. [tracking issue]: rust-lang/rust#53667 [RFC 2497]: rust-lang/rfcs#2497 [2024 edition]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/edition-guide/rust-2024/index.html ## What is being stabilized The ability to `&&`-chain `let` statements inside `if` and `while` is being stabilized, allowing intermixture with boolean expressions. The patterns inside the `let` sub-expressions can be irrefutable or refutable. ```Rust struct FnCall<'a> { fn_name: &'a str, args: Vec<i32>, } fn is_legal_ident(s: &str) -> bool { s.chars() .all(|c| ('a'..='z').contains(&c) || ('A'..='Z').contains(&c)) } impl<'a> FnCall<'a> { fn parse(s: &'a str) -> Option<Self> { if let Some((fn_name, after_name)) = s.split_once("(") && !fn_name.is_empty() && is_legal_ident(fn_name) && let Some((args_str, "")) = after_name.rsplit_once(")") { let args = args_str .split(',') .map(|arg| arg.parse()) .collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>(); args.ok().map(|args| FnCall { fn_name, args }) } else { None } } fn exec(&self) -> Option<i32> { let iter = self.args.iter().copied(); match self.fn_name { "sum" => Some(iter.sum()), "max" => iter.max(), "min" => iter.min(), _ => None, } } } fn main() { println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("sum(1,2,3)").unwrap().exec()); println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("max(4,5)").unwrap().exec()); } ``` The feature will only be stabilized for the 2024 edition and future editions. Users of past editions will get an error with a hint to update the edition. closes #53667 ## Why 2024 edition? Rust generally tries to ship new features to all editions. So even the oldest editions receive the newest features. However, sometimes a feature requires a breaking change so much that offering the feature without the breaking change makes no sense. This occurs rarely, but has happened in the 2018 edition already with `async` and `await` syntax. It required an edition boundary in order for `async`/`await` to become keywords, and the entire feature foots on those keywords. In the instance of let chains, the issue is the drop order of `if let` chains. If we want `if let` chains to be compatible with `if let`, drop order makes it hard for us to [generate correct MIR]. It would be strange to have different behaviour for `if let ... {}` and `if true && let ... {}`. So it's better to [stay consistent with `if let`]. In edition 2024, [drop order changes] have been introduced to make `if let` temporaries be lived more shortly. These changes also affected `if let` chains. These changes make sense even if you don't take the `if let` chains MIR generation problem into account. But if we want to use them as the solution to the MIR generation problem, we need to restrict let chains to edition 2024 and beyond: for let chains, it's not just a change towards more sensible behaviour, but one required for correct function. [generate correct MIR]: rust-lang/rust#104843 [stay consistent with `if let`]: rust-lang/rust#103293 (comment) [drop order changes]: rust-lang/rust#124085 ## Introduction considerations As edition 2024 is very new, this stabilization PR only makes it possible to use let chains on 2024 without that feature gate, it doesn't mark that feature gate as stable/removed. I would propose to continue offering the `let_chains` feature (behind a feature gate) for a limited time (maybe 3 months after stabilization?) on older editions to allow nightly users to adopt edition 2024 at their own pace. After that, the feature gate shall be marked as *stabilized*, not removed, and replaced by an error on editions 2021 and below. ## Implementation history * History from before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR] that was reverted. * rust-lang/rust#94927 * rust-lang/rust#94951 * rust-lang/rust#94974 * rust-lang/rust#95008 * rust-lang/rust#97295 * rust-lang/rust#98633 * rust-lang/rust#99731 * rust-lang/rust#102394 * rust-lang/rust#100526 * rust-lang/rust#100538 * rust-lang/rust#102998 * rust-lang/rust#103405 * rust-lang/rust#103293 * rust-lang/rust#107251 * rust-lang/rust#110568 * rust-lang/rust#115677 * rust-lang/rust#117743 * rust-lang/rust#117770 * rust-lang/rust#118191 * rust-lang/rust#119554 * rust-lang/rust#129394 * rust-lang/rust#132828 * rust-lang/reference#1179 * rust-lang/reference#1251 * rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 [original stabilization PR]: rust-lang/rust#94927 ## Adoption history ### In the compiler * History before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR]. * rust-lang/rust#115983 * rust-lang/rust#116549 * rust-lang/rust#116688 ### Outside of the compiler * rust-lang/rust-clippy#11750 * [rspack](https://github.com/web-infra-dev/rspack) * [risingwave](https://github.com/risingwavelabs/risingwave) * [dylint](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint) * [convex-backend](https://github.com/get-convex/convex-backend) * [tikv](https://github.com/tikv/tikv) * [Daft](https://github.com/Eventual-Inc/Daft) * [greptimedb](https://github.com/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb) ## Tests <details> ### Intentional restrictions [`partially-macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/partially-macro-expanded.rs), [`macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/macro-expanded.rs): it is possible to use macros to expand to both the pattern and the expression inside a let chain, but not to the entire `let pat = expr` operand. [`parens.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/parens.rs): `if (let pat = expr)` is not allowed in chains [`ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs): `let...else` doesn't support chaining. ### Overlap with match guards [`move-guard-if-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/move-guard-if-let-chain.rs): test for the `use moved value` error working well in match guards. could maybe be extended with let chains that have more than one `let` [`shadowing.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/shadowing.rs): shadowing in if let guards works as expected [`ast-validate-guards.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-validate-guards.rs): let chains in match guards require the match guards feature gate ### Simple cases from the early days PR #88642 has added some tests with very simple usages of `let else`, mostly as regression tests to early bugs. [`then-else-blocks.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs) [`ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs) [`issue-90722.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs) [`issue-92145.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs) ### Drop order/MIR scoping tests [`issue-100276.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/issue-100276.rs): let expressions on RHS aren't terminating scopes [`drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs): exhaustive temporary drop order test for various Rust constructs, including let chains [`scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/scope.rs): match guard scoping test [`drop-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/drop-scope.rs): another match guard scoping test, ensuring that temporaries in if-let guards live for the arm [`drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs): if let rescoping on edition 2024, including chains [`mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs): comprehensive drop order test for let chains, distinguishes editions 2021 and 2024. [`issue-99938.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-99938.rs), [`issue-99852.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/issue-99852.rs) both bad MIR ICEs fixed by #102394 ### Linting [`irrefutable-lets.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs): trailing and leading irrefutable let patterns get linted for, others don't. The lint is turned off for `else if`. [`issue-121070-let-range.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/lint/issue-121070-let-range.rs): regression test for false positive of the unused parens lint, precedence requires the `()`s here ### Parser: intentional restrictions [`disallowed-positions.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/2128d8df0e858edcbe6a0861bac948b88b7fabc3/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs): `let` in expression context is rejected everywhere except at the top level [`invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs): nested `let` is not allowed (let's are no legal expressions just because they are allowed in `if` and `while`). ### Parser: recovery [`issue-103381.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/issues/issue-103381.rs): Graceful recovery of incorrect chaining of `if` and `if let` [`semi-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/semi-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray `;`s in let chains give nice errors (`if_chain!` users might be accustomed to `;`s) [`deli-ident-issue-1.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/deli-ident-issue-1.rs), [`brace-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray unclosed `{`s in let chains give nice errors and hints ### Misc [`conflicting_bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/conflicting_bindings.rs): the conflicting bindings check also works in let chains. Personally, I'd extend it to chains with multiple let's as well. [`let-chains-attr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/expr/if/attrs/let-chains-attr.rs): attributes work on let chains ### Tangential tests with `#![feature(let_chains)]` [`if-let.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/coverage/branch/if-let.rs): MC/DC coverage tests for let chains [`logical_or_in_conditional.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/mir-opt/building/logical_or_in_conditional.rs): not really about let chains, more about dropping/scoping behaviour of `||` [`stringify.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs): exhaustive test of the `stringify` macro [`expanded-interpolation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs), [`expanded-exhaustive.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs): Exhaustive test of `-Zunpretty` [`diverges-not.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-0000-never_patterns/diverges-not.rs): Never type, mostly tangential to let chains </details> ## Possible future work * There is proposals to allow `if let Pat(bindings) = expr {}` to be written as `if expr is Pat(bindings) {}` ([RFC 3573]). `if let` chains are a natural extension of the already existing `if let` syntax, and I'd argue orthogonal towards `is` syntax. * rust-lang/lang-team#297 * One could have similar chaining inside `let ... else` statements. There is no proposed RFC for this however, nor is it implemented on nightly. * Match guards have the `if` keyword as well, but on stable Rust, they don't support `let`. The functionality is available via an unstable feature ([`if_let_guard` tracking issue]). Stabilization of let chains affects this feature in so far as match guards containing let chains now only need the `if_let_guard` feature gate be present instead of also the `let_chains` feature (NOTE: this PR doesn't implement this simplification, it's left for future work). [RFC 3573]: rust-lang/rfcs#3573 [`if_let_guard` tracking issue]: rust-lang/rust#51114 ## Open questions / blockers - [ ] bad recovery if you don't put a `let` (I don't think this is a blocker): [#117977](rust-lang/rust#117977) - [x] An instance where a temporary lives shorter than with nested ifs, breaking compilation: [#103476](rust-lang/rust#103476). Personally I don't think this is a blocker either, as it's an edge case. Edit: turns out to not reproduce in edition 2025 any more, due to let rescoping. regression test added in #133093 - [x] One should probably extend the tests for `move-guard-if-let-chain.rs` and `conflicting_bindings.rs` to have chains with multiple let's: done in 133093 - [x] Parsing rejection tests: addressed by rust-lang/rust#132828 - [x] [Style](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/346005-t-style/topic/let.20chains.20stabilization.20and.20formatting): rust-lang/rust#139456 - [x] rust-lang/rust#86730 explicitly mentions `let_else`. I think we can live with `let pat = expr` not evaluating as `expr` for macro_rules macros, especially given that `let pat = expr` is not a legal expression anywhere except inside `if` and `while`. - [x] Documentation in the reference: rust-lang/reference#1740 - [x] Add chapter to the Rust 2024 [edition guide]: rust-lang/edition-guide#337 - [x] Resolve open questions on desired drop order. [original reference PR]: rust-lang/reference#1179 [edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide
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.
Reopens #110568
refs #53667 and I suppose #132833 as well
This reflects the style rules that the style team had already agreed upon back in 2023, with the addition of literals in the lhs being permissible for single line formatting, and the removal of unnecessary language/example snippets around non-
&&operators that was a small hiccup in the original PR.It also reflects current formatting behavior implemented in rustfmt (though note that the adjustment to include literals has been implemented & merged, but is still pending a sync to nightly)