30344f7fa3
Mostly parser: Eliminate code that's been dead / semi-dead since the removal of type ascription syntax **Disclaimer**: This PR is intended to mostly clean up code as opposed to bringing about behavioral changes. Therefore it doesn't aim to address any of the 'FIXME: remove after a month [dated: 2023-05-02]: "type ascription syntax has been removed, see issue [#]101728"'. --- By commit: 1. Removes truly dead code: * Since 1.71 (#109128) `let _ = { f: x };` is a syntax error as opposed to a semantic error which allows the parse-time diagnostic (suggestion) "*struct literal body without path // you might have forgotten […]*" to kick in. * The analysis-time diagnostic (suggestion) from <=1.70 "*cannot find value \`f\` in this scope // you might have forgotten […]*" is therefore no longer reachable. 2. Updates `is_certainly_not_a_block` to be in line with the current grammar: * The seq. `{ ident:` is definitely not the start of a block. Before the removal of ty ascr, `{ ident: ty_start` would begin a block expr. * This shouldn't make more code compile IINM, it should *ultimately* only affect diagnostics. * For example, `if T { f: () } {}` will now be interpreted as an `if` with struct lit `T { f: () }` as its *condition* (which is banned in the parser anyway) as opposed to just `T` (with the *consequent* being `f : ()` which is also invalid (since 1.71)). The diagnostics are almost the same because we have two separate parse recovery procedures + diagnostics: `StructLiteralNeedingParens` (*invalid struct lit*) before and `StructLiteralNotAllowedHere` (*struct lits aren't allowed here*) now, as you can see from the diff. * (As an aside, even before this PR, fn `maybe_suggest_struct_literal` should've just used the much older & clearer `StructLiteralNotAllowedHere`) * NB: This does sadly regress the compiler output for `tests/ui/parser/type-ascription-in-pattern.rs` but that can be fixed in follow-up PRs. It's not super important IMO and a natural consequence. 3. Removes code that's become dead due to the prior commit. * Basically reverts #106620 + #112475 (without regressing rustc's output!). * Now the older & more robust parse recovery procedure (cc `StructLiteralNotAllowedHere`) takes care of the cases the removed code used to handle. * This automatically fixes the suggestions for \[[playground](https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2024&gist=7e2030163b11ee96d17adc3325b01780)\]: * `if Ty::<i32> { f: K }.m() {}`: `if Ty::<i32> { SomeStruct { f: K } }.m() {}` (broken) → ` if (Ty::<i32> { f: K }).m() {}` * `if <T as Trait>::Out { f: K::<> }.m() {}`: `if <T as Trait>(::Out { f: K::<> }).m() {}` (broken) → `if (<T as Trait>::Out { f: K::<> }).m() {}` 4. Merge and simplify UI tests pertaining to this issue, so it's easier to add more regression tests like for the two cases mentioned above. 5. Merge UI tests and add the two regression tests. Best reviewed commit by commit (on request I'll partially squash after approval). |
||
|---|---|---|
| .. | ||
| src | ||
| Cargo.toml | ||
| README.md | ||
The rustc_ast crate contains those things concerned purely with syntax
– that is, the AST ("abstract syntax tree"), along with some definitions for tokens and token streams, data structures/traits for mutating ASTs, and shared definitions for other AST-related parts of the compiler (like the lexer and macro-expansion).
For more information about how these things work in rustc, see the rustc dev guide: