-use rustc::lint::*;
+use rustc::lint::{LateContext, LateLintPass, LintArray, LintPass};
use rustc::{declare_lint, lint_array};
use if_chain::if_chain;
use rustc::hir::*;
use syntax::ast::RangeLimits;
-use syntax::codemap::Spanned;
-use crate::utils::{is_integer_literal, paths, snippet, span_lint, span_lint_and_then};
+use syntax::source_map::Spanned;
+use crate::utils::{is_integer_literal, paths, snippet, span_lint, span_lint_and_then, snippet_opt};
use crate::utils::{get_trait_def_id, higher, implements_trait, SpanlessEq};
use crate::utils::sugg::Sugg;
/// **Why is this bad?** The code is more readable with an inclusive range
/// like `x..=y`.
///
-/// **Known problems:** None.
+/// **Known problems:** Will add unnecessary pair of parentheses when the
+/// expression is not wrapped in a pair but starts with a opening parenthesis
+/// and ends with a closing one.
+/// I.e: let _ = (f()+1)..(f()+1) results in let _ = ((f()+1)..(f()+1)).
///
/// **Example:**
/// ```rust
/// ```
declare_clippy_lint! {
pub RANGE_PLUS_ONE,
- nursery,
+ complexity,
"`x..(y+1)` reads better as `x..=y`"
}
/// ```
declare_clippy_lint! {
pub RANGE_MINUS_ONE,
- style,
+ complexity,
"`x..=(y-1)` reads better as `x..y`"
}
|db| {
let start = start.map_or("".to_owned(), |x| Sugg::hir(cx, x, "x").to_string());
let end = Sugg::hir(cx, y, "y");
- db.span_suggestion(expr.span,
+ if let Some(is_wrapped) = &snippet_opt(cx, expr.span) {
+ if is_wrapped.starts_with("(") && is_wrapped.ends_with(")") {
+ db.span_suggestion(expr.span,
+ "use",
+ format!("({}..={})", start, end));
+ } else {
+ db.span_suggestion(expr.span,
"use",
format!("{}..={}", start, end));
+ }
+ }
},
);
}