Added a lint-fraction-readability flag to the configuration

[xFrednet]

This adds an option to disable the unreadable_literal lint for floats with a longer fraction. This allows users to write 0.100200300 without getting a warning. Fixes #4176

I have some open questions about this PR:

1. I've named the option lint-fraction-readability is this a good name or should I rename it to something else?
2. What should the default configuration value be?
   • The current default value is true as this was also the previous default.
3. Do I have to document this new option somewhere else or will it be extracted from the code comment?
4. The current fix option will also rewrite the fraction if the integer part violates the unreadable_literal lint it would otherwise also trigger the inconsistent_digit_grouping lint. Is this also okay?
   • 1.100200300 will be unaffected by the fix function
   • 100200300.100200300 will be effected and fixed to 100_200_300.100_200_300

---

The project needed some getting used to but I'm happy with the result. A big thank you to @flip1995 for giving me some pointers for this implementation and to everyone for the great introduction documentation!

---

changelog: Added the unreadable-literal-lint-fractions configuration to disable the unreadable_literal lint for fractions

[rust-highfive]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @Manishearth (or someone else) soon.

If any changes to this PR are deemed necessary, please add them as extra commits. This ensures that the reviewer can see what has changed since they last reviewed the code. Due to the way GitHub handles out-of-date commits, this should also make it reasonably obvious what issues have or haven't been addressed. Large or tricky changes may require several passes of review and changes.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information.

[Manishearth]

I've named the option lint-fraction-readability is this a good name or should I rename it to something else?

i would have unreadable-literal in the name, so unreadable-literal-lint-fractions or something

• What should the default configuration value be?

  • The current default value is true as this was also the previous default.

• Do I have to document this new option somewhere else or will it be extracted from the code comment?

yes and yes

The current fix option will also rewrite the fraction if the integer part violates the unreadable_literal lint it would otherwise also trigger the inconsistent_digit_grouping lint. Is this also okay?

not sure what you mean here

[Manishearth]

overall looks good

[xFrednet]

The configuration was renamed to unreadable-literal-lint-fractions. I agree that that is a better name.

The 4th question was about the automatic suggestion if the lint gets violated for the integer part. I haven't changed the suggestion generation. This means that a number that violated the integer readability like 100200300.100200300 would also have separation in the fraction part. The suggestion for that number would be: 100_200_300.100_200_300. I believe that this is still a good thing to keep the number consistent.

[Manishearth]

The 4th question was about the automatic suggestion if the lint gets violated for the integer part. I haven't changed the suggestion generation. This means that a number that violated the integer readability like 100200300.100200300 would also have separation in the fraction part. The suggestion for that number would be: 100_200_300.100_200_300. I believe that this is still a good thing to keep the number consistent.

Oh. Yeah that seems fine, that's what I would expect.

[Manishearth]

@bors r+

thanks!

[bors]

📌 Commit 898b7c5 has been approved by Manishearth

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit 898b7c5 with merge c1664c5...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-action_dev_test, checks-action_remark_test, checks-action_test
Approved by: Manishearth
Pushing c1664c5 to master...