bjoernager/rust
bjoernager/rust
1
Fork 0
Code Activity

test case for expansion of method macro

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
John Clements 2014-07-07 15:12:31 -07:00
parent 9ee9c49cb4
commit 8f34b21375
1 changed files with 13 additions and 2 deletions
Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

15
src/libsyntax/ext/expand.rs
View file

@ -512,8 +512,10 @@ fn expand_item_mac(it: Gc<ast::Item>, fld: &mut MacroExpander)
let items = match expanded.make_def() {
Some(MacroDef { name, ext }) => {
// yikes... no idea how to apply the mark to this. I'm afraid
// we're going to have to wait-and-see on this one.
// hidden invariant: this should only be possible as the
// result of expanding a LetSyntaxTT, and thus doesn't
// need to be marked. Not that it could be marked anyway.
// create issue to recommend refactoring here?
fld.extsbox.insert(intern(name.as_slice()), ext);
if attr::contains_name(it.attrs.as_slice(), "macro_export") {
SmallVector::one(it)
@ -1466,6 +1468,15 @@ mod test {
0)
}
// macro_rules in method position
#[test] fn macro_in_method_posn(){
expand_crate_str(
"macro_rules! my_method (() => fn thirteen(&self) -> int {13})
struct A;
impl A{ my_method!()}
fn f(){A.thirteen;}".to_string());
}
// run one of the renaming tests
fn run_renaming_test(t: &RenamingTest, test_idx: uint) {
let invalid_name = token::special_idents::invalid.name;