parser: not insert dummy field in struct
Fixes#114636
This PR eliminates the dummy field, initially introduced in #113999, thereby enabling unrestricted use of `ident.unwrap()`. A side effect of this action is that we can only report the error of the first macro invocation field within the struct node.
An alternative solution might be giving a virtual name to the macro, but it appears more complex.(https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114636#issuecomment-1670228715). Furthermore, if you think https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/114636#issuecomment-1670228715 is a better solution, feel free to close this PR.
Anonymous structs or unions are only allowed in struct field
definitions.
Co-authored-by: carbotaniuman <41451839+carbotaniuman@users.noreply.github.com>
It's the same as `Delimiter`, minus the `Invisible` variant. I'm
generally in favour of using types to make impossible states
unrepresentable, but this one feels very low-value, and the conversions
between the two types are annoying and confusing.
Look at the change in `src/tools/rustfmt/src/expr.rs` for an example:
the old code converted from `MacDelimiter` to `Delimiter` and back
again, for no good reason. This suggests the author was confused about
the types.
Implement builtin # syntax and use it for offset_of!(...)
Add `builtin #` syntax to the parser, as well as a generic infrastructure to support both item and expression position builtin syntaxes. The PR also uses this infrastructure for the implementation of the `offset_of!` macro, added by #106934.
cc `@petrochenkov` `@DrMeepster`
cc #110680 `builtin #` tracking issue
cc #106655 `offset_of!` tracking issue
Implement negative bounds for internal testing purposes
Implements partial support the `!` negative polarity on trait bounds. This is incomplete, but should allow us to at least be able to play with the feature.
Not even gonna consider them as a public-facing feature, but I'm implementing them because would've been nice to have in UI tests, for example in #110671.
Currently a `{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` can be created from any type that
impls `Into<String>`. That includes `&str`, `String`, and `Cow<'static,
str>`, which are reasonable. It also includes `&String`, which is pretty
weird, and results in many places making unnecessary allocations for
patterns like this:
```
self.fatal(&format!(...))
```
This creates a string with `format!`, takes a reference, passes the
reference to `fatal`, which does an `into()`, which clones the
reference, doing a second allocation. Two allocations for a single
string, bleh.
This commit changes the `From` impls so that you can only create a
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage` from `&str`, `String`, or `Cow<'static,
str>`. This requires changing all the places that currently create one
from a `&String`. Most of these are of the `&format!(...)` form
described above; each one removes an unnecessary static `&`, plus an
allocation when executed. There are also a few places where the existing
use of `&String` was more reasonable; these now just use `clone()` at
the call site.
As well as making the code nicer and more efficient, this is a step
towards possibly using `Cow<'static, str>` in
`{D,Subd}iagnosticMessage::{Str,Eager}`. That would require changing
the `From<&'a str>` impls to `From<&'static str>`, which is doable, but
I'm not yet sure if it's worthwhile.
My type ascription
Oh rip it out
Ah
If you think we live too much then
You can sacrifice diagnostics
Don't mix your garbage
Into my syntax
So many weird hacks keep diagnostics alive
Yet I don't even step outside
So many bad diagnostics keep tyasc alive
Yet tyasc doesn't even bother to survive!
This resolves an inconsistency in naming style for functions
on the parser, between functions parsing specific kinds of items
and those for expressions, favoring the parse_item_[sth] style
used by functions for items. There are multiple advantages
of that style:
* functions of both categories are collected in the same place
in the rustdoc output.
* it helps with autocompletion, as you can narrow down your
search for a function to those about expressions.
* it mirrors rust's path syntax where less specific things
come first, then it gets more specific, i.e.
std::collections::hash_map::Entry
The disadvantage is that it doesn't "read like a sentence"
any more, but I think the advantages weigh more greatly.
This change was mostly application of this command:
sed -i -E 's/(fn |\.)parse_([[:alnum:]_]+)_expr/\1parse_expr_\2/' compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/*.rs
Plus very minor fixes outside of rustc_parse, and an invocation
of x fmt.
The check previously matched this, and suggested adding a missing
`struct`:
pub Foo(...):
It was probably intended to match this instead (semicolon instead of
colon):
pub Foo(...);
Recover from where clauses placed before tuple struct bodies
Open to any suggestions regarding the phrasing of the diagnostic.
Fixes#100790.
`@rustbot` label A-diagnostics
r? diagnostics
Rollup of 9 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #104531 (Provide a better error and a suggestion for `Fn` traits with lifetime params)
- #105899 (`./x doc library --open` opens `std`)
- #106190 (Account for multiple multiline spans with empty padding)
- #106202 (Trim more paths in obligation types)
- #106234 (rustdoc: simplify settings, help, and copy button CSS by not reusing)
- #106236 (docs/test: add docs and a UI test for `E0514` and `E0519`)
- #106259 (Update Clippy)
- #106260 (Fix index out of bounds issues in rustdoc)
- #106263 (Formatter should not try to format non-Rust files)
Failed merges:
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Currently, given `Fn`-family traits with lifetime params like
`Fn<'a>(&'a str) -> bool`, many unhelpful errors show up. These are a
bit confusing.
This commit allows these situations to suggest simply using
higher-ranked trait bounds like `for<'a> Fn(&'a str) -> bool`.
