Nicer error message if the user attempts to do let...else if
Gives a nice "conditional `else if` is not supported for `let...else`" error when encountering a `let...else if` pattern, as suggested in the [let...else tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/87335#issuecomment-944846205).
Accept `m!{ .. }.method()` and `m!{ .. }?` statements.
This PR fixes something that I keep running into when using `quote!{}.into()` in a proc macro to convert the `proc_macro2::TokenStream` to a `proc_macro::TokenStream`:
Before:
```
error: expected expression, found `.`
--> src/lib.rs:6:6
|
4 | quote! {
5 | ...
6 | }.into()
| ^ expected expression
```
After:
```
```
(No output, compiles fine.)
---
Context:
For expressions like `{ 1 }` and `if true { 1 } else { 2 }`, we accept them as full statements without a trailing `;`, which means the following is not accepted:
```rust
{ 1 } - 1 // error
```
since that is parsed as two statements: `{ 1 }` and `-1`. Syntactically correct, but the type of `{ 1 }` should be `()` as there is no `;`.
However, for specifically `.` and `?` after the `}`, we do [continue parsing it as an expression](13db8440bb/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs (L864-L876)):
```rust
{ "abc" }.len(); // ok
```
For braced macro invocations, we do not do this:
```rust
vec![1, 2, 3].len(); // ok
vec!{1, 2, 3}.len(); // error
```
(It parses `vec!{1, 2, 3}` as a full statement, and then complains about `.len()` not being a valid expression.)
This PR changes this to also look for a `.` and `?` after a braced macro invocation. We can be sure the macro is an expression and not a full statement in those cases, since no statement can start with a `.` or `?`.
This PR modifies the macro expansion infrastructure to handle attributes
in a fully token-based manner. As a result:
* Derives macros no longer lose spans when their input is modified
by eager cfg-expansion. This is accomplished by performing eager
cfg-expansion on the token stream that we pass to the derive
proc-macro
* Inner attributes now preserve spans in all cases, including when we
have multiple inner attributes in a row.
This is accomplished through the following changes:
* New structs `AttrAnnotatedTokenStream` and `AttrAnnotatedTokenTree` are introduced.
These are very similar to a normal `TokenTree`, but they also track
the position of attributes and attribute targets within the stream.
They are built when we collect tokens during parsing.
An `AttrAnnotatedTokenStream` is converted to a regular `TokenStream` when
we invoke a macro.
* Token capturing and `LazyTokenStream` are modified to work with
`AttrAnnotatedTokenStream`. A new `ReplaceRange` type is introduced, which
is created during the parsing of a nested AST node to make the 'outer'
AST node aware of the attributes and attribute target stored deeper in the token stream.
* When we need to perform eager cfg-expansion (either due to `#[derive]` or `#[cfg_eval]`),
we tokenize and reparse our target, capturing additional information about the locations of
`#[cfg]` and `#[cfg_attr]` attributes at any depth within the target.
This is a performance optimization, allowing us to perform less work
in the typical case where captured tokens never have eager cfg-expansion run.
or-patterns: disallow in `let` bindings
~~Blocked on https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/81869~~
Disallows top-level or-patterns before type ascription. We want to reserve this syntactic space for possible future generalized type ascription.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
When token-based attribute handling is implemeneted in #80689,
we will need to access tokens from `HasAttrs` (to perform
cfg-stripping), and we will to access attributes from `HasTokens` (to
construct a `PreexpTokenStream`).
This PR merges the `HasAttrs` and `HasTokens` traits into a new
`AstLike` trait. The previous `HasAttrs` impls from `Vec<Attribute>` and `AttrVec`
are removed - they aren't attribute targets, so the impls never really
made sense.
Along the way, we also implement a handful of diagnostics improvements
and fixes, particularly with respect to the special handling of `||` in
place of `|` and when there are leading verts in function params, which
don't allow top-level or-patterns anyway.
This is a pure refactoring split out from #80689.
It represents the most invasive part of that PR, requiring changes in
every caller of `parse_outer_attributes`
In order to eagerly expand `#[cfg]` attributes while preserving the
original `TokenStream`, we need to know the range of tokens that
corresponds to every attribute target. This is accomplished by making
`parse_outer_attributes` return an opaque `AttrWrapper` struct. An
`AttrWrapper` must be converted to a plain `AttrVec` by passing it to
`collect_tokens_trailing_token`. This makes it difficult to accidentally
construct an AST node with attributes without calling `collect_tokens_trailing_token`,
since AST nodes store an `AttrVec`, not an `AttrWrapper`.
As a result, we now call `collect_tokens_trailing_token` for attribute
targets which only support inert attributes, such as generic arguments
and struct fields. Currently, the constructed `LazyTokenStream` is
simply discarded. Future PRs will record the token range corresponding
to the attribute target, allowing those tokens to be removed from an
enclosing `collect_tokens_trailing_token` call if necessary.
Fixes#81007
Previously, we would fail to collect tokens in the proper place when
only builtin attributes were present. As a result, we would end up with
attribute tokens in the collected `TokenStream`, leading to duplication
when we attempted to prepend the attributes from the AST node.
We now explicitly track when token collection must be performed due to
nomterminal parsing.
A new `HasTokens` trait is introduced, which is used to move logic from
the callers of `collect_tokens` into the body of `collect_tokens`.
In addition to reducing duplication, this paves the way for PR #80689,
which needs to perform additional logic during token collection.
When parsing a statement (e.g. inside a function body),
we now consider `struct Foo {};` and `$stmt;` to each consist
of two statements: `struct Foo {}` and `;`, and `$stmt` and `;`.
As a result, an attribute macro invoke as
`fn foo() { #[attr] struct Bar{}; }` will see `struct Bar{}` as its
input. Additionally, the 'unused semicolon' lint now fires in more
places.
We now collect tokens for the underlying node wrapped by `StmtKind`
instead of storing tokens directly in `Stmt`.
`LazyTokenStream` now supports capturing a trailing semicolon after it
is initially constructed. This allows us to avoid refactoring statement
parsing to wrap the parsing of the semicolon in `parse_tokens`.
Attributes on item statements
(e.g. `fn foo() { #[bar] struct MyStruct; }`) are now treated as
item attributes, not statement attributes, which is consistent with how
we handle attributes on other kinds of statements. The feature-gating
code is adjusted so that proc-macro attributes are still allowed on item
statements on stable.
Two built-in macros (`#[global_allocator]` and `#[test]`) needed to be
adjusted to support being passed `Annotatable::Stmt`.
This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies
that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect
will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case:
```rust
fn foo() -> Foo {
bar: Vec::new()
}
```
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope
--> src/file.rs:5:5
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription
error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait
--> src/file.rs:5:15
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses
error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0
--> src/file.rs:5:10
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument
```
If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it
would trigger the new, more targetted, error:
```
error: struct literal body without path
--> file.rs:4:17
|
4 | fn foo() -> Foo {
| _________________^
5 | | bar: Vec::new(),
6 | | }
| |_^
|
help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block
|
4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path {
5 | bar: Vec::new(),
6 | } }
|
```
Partially address last part of #34255.
We currently only attach tokens when parsing a `:stmt` matcher for a
`macro_rules!` macro. Proc-macro attributes on statements are still
unstable, and need additional work.
