Don't suggest adding in to a for loop that already has one#157917
Merged
rust-bors[bot] merged 1 commit intoJun 18, 2026
Merged
Conversation
When a `for` loop is missing its `in`, the parser suggested inserting one based only on the token after the pattern. A malformed binding such as `for i i in 0..10` was therefore "corrected" to `for i in i in 0..10`, which does not parse. Only suggest inserting `in` when the loop header does not already contain one before the body.
Collaborator
|
The parser was modified, potentially altering the grammar of (stable) Rust cc @fmease |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Collaborator
|
r? @folkertdev rustbot has assigned @folkertdev. Use Why was this reviewer chosen?The reviewer was selected based on:
|
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
Contributor
|
Thanks! @bors r+ rollup |
Contributor
rust-bors
Bot
added
S-waiting-on-bors
JonathanBrouwer
added a commit
to JonathanBrouwer/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2026
…estion-103561, r=folkertdev Don't suggest adding `in` to a `for` loop that already has one Closes rust-lang#103561. When a `for` loop is missing its `in`, the parser suggested inserting one based only on the token following the pattern. For a malformed binding such as `for i i in 0..10` it therefore suggested `for i in i in 0..10`, which is itself invalid. The suggestion is now only emitted when the loop header does not already contain an `in` before the body. The `for x EXPR` / `for x of EXPR` / `for x = EXPR` suggestions are unchanged.
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 8 pull requests Successful merges: - #157788 (Accumulate multiple -Zsanitizer target modifiers) - #158012 (Stabilize `strip_circumfix`) - #157810 (Query the trait solver in slow path for `missing_debug_implementations`) - #157829 (tests: adapt two tests for LLVM 23 changes) - #157917 (Don't suggest adding `in` to a `for` loop that already has one) - #157967 (Preserve track_caller for by-value dyn vtable shims) - #158019 (delegation: add simple test for incremental compilation) - #158023 (Move `UnusedDuplicate` diag struct to `rustc_attr_parsing`)
rust-bors Bot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 17, 2026
…uwer Rollup of 12 pull requests Successful merges: - #157788 (Accumulate multiple -Zsanitizer target modifiers) - #158012 (Stabilize `strip_circumfix`) - #157810 (Query the trait solver in slow path for `missing_debug_implementations`) - #157829 (tests: adapt two tests for LLVM 23 changes) - #157873 (mips: set llvm_args -mno-check-zero-division for all mips targets) - #157886 (Reject extra fields in MGCA struct const arguments) - #157917 (Don't suggest adding `in` to a `for` loop that already has one) - #157967 (Preserve track_caller for by-value dyn vtable shims) - #158019 (delegation: add simple test for incremental compilation) - #158023 (Move `UnusedDuplicate` diag struct to `rustc_attr_parsing`) - #158029 (Rename `project-stable-mir` to `project-rustc-public`) - #158044 (Add more tests for parallel frontend issues)
rust-timer
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jun 18, 2026
Rollup merge of #157917 - onehr:fix-for-loop-missing-in-suggestion-103561, r=folkertdev Don't suggest adding `in` to a `for` loop that already has one Closes #103561. When a `for` loop is missing its `in`, the parser suggested inserting one based only on the token following the pattern. For a malformed binding such as `for i i in 0..10` it therefore suggested `for i in i in 0..10`, which is itself invalid. The suggestion is now only emitted when the loop header does not already contain an `in` before the body. The `for x EXPR` / `for x of EXPR` / `for x = EXPR` suggestions are unchanged.
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
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.
Closes #103561.
When a
forloop is missing itsin, the parser suggested inserting one based only on the token following the pattern. For a malformed binding such asfor i i in 0..10it therefore suggestedfor i in i in 0..10, which is itself invalid.The suggestion is now only emitted when the loop header does not already contain an
inbefore the body. Thefor x EXPR/for x of EXPR/for x = EXPRsuggestions are unchanged.