| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
All uses have been removed. And it's nonsensical: an identifier by
definition has at least one char.
The commits adds an is-non-empty assertion to `Ident::new` to enforce
this, and converts some `Ident` constructions to use `Ident::new`.
Adding the assertion requires making `Ident::new` and
`Ident::with_dummy_span` non-const, which is no great loss.
The commit amends a couple of places that do path splitting to ensure no
empty identifiers are created.
|
|
|
|
Handle another negated literal in `eat_token_lit`.
Extends the change from #139653, which was on expressions, to literals.
Fixes #140098.
r? ``@petrochenkov``
|
|
Stabilize let chains in the 2024 edition
# Stabilization report
This proposes the stabilization of `let_chains` ([tracking issue], [RFC 2497]) in the [2024 edition] of Rust.
[tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/53667
[RFC 2497]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2497
[2024 edition]: https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/edition-guide/rust-2024/index.html
## What is being stabilized
The ability to `&&`-chain `let` statements inside `if` and `while` is being stabilized, allowing intermixture with boolean expressions. The patterns inside the `let` sub-expressions can be irrefutable or refutable.
```Rust
struct FnCall<'a> {
fn_name: &'a str,
args: Vec<i32>,
}
fn is_legal_ident(s: &str) -> bool {
s.chars()
.all(|c| ('a'..='z').contains(&c) || ('A'..='Z').contains(&c))
}
impl<'a> FnCall<'a> {
fn parse(s: &'a str) -> Option<Self> {
if let Some((fn_name, after_name)) = s.split_once("(")
&& !fn_name.is_empty()
&& is_legal_ident(fn_name)
&& let Some((args_str, "")) = after_name.rsplit_once(")")
{
let args = args_str
.split(',')
.map(|arg| arg.parse())
.collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>();
args.ok().map(|args| FnCall { fn_name, args })
} else {
None
}
}
fn exec(&self) -> Option<i32> {
let iter = self.args.iter().copied();
match self.fn_name {
"sum" => Some(iter.sum()),
"max" => iter.max(),
"min" => iter.min(),
_ => None,
}
}
}
fn main() {
println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("sum(1,2,3)").unwrap().exec());
println!("{:?}", FnCall::parse("max(4,5)").unwrap().exec());
}
```
The feature will only be stabilized for the 2024 edition and future editions. Users of past editions will get an error with a hint to update the edition.
closes #53667
## Why 2024 edition?
Rust generally tries to ship new features to all editions. So even the oldest editions receive the newest features. However, sometimes a feature requires a breaking change so much that offering the feature without the breaking change makes no sense. This occurs rarely, but has happened in the 2018 edition already with `async` and `await` syntax. It required an edition boundary in order for `async`/`await` to become keywords, and the entire feature foots on those keywords.
In the instance of let chains, the issue is the drop order of `if let` chains. If we want `if let` chains to be compatible with `if let`, drop order makes it hard for us to [generate correct MIR]. It would be strange to have different behaviour for `if let ... {}` and `if true && let ... {}`. So it's better to [stay consistent with `if let`].
In edition 2024, [drop order changes] have been introduced to make `if let` temporaries be lived more shortly. These changes also affected `if let` chains. These changes make sense even if you don't take the `if let` chains MIR generation problem into account. But if we want to use them as the solution to the MIR generation problem, we need to restrict let chains to edition 2024 and beyond: for let chains, it's not just a change towards more sensible behaviour, but one required for correct function.
[generate correct MIR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/104843
[stay consistent with `if let`]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103293#issuecomment-1293408574
[drop order changes]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/124085
## Introduction considerations
As edition 2024 is very new, this stabilization PR only makes it possible to use let chains on 2024 without that feature gate, it doesn't mark that feature gate as stable/removed. I would propose to continue offering the `let_chains` feature (behind a feature gate) for a limited time (maybe 3 months after stabilization?) on older editions to allow nightly users to adopt edition 2024 at their own pace. After that, the feature gate shall be marked as *stabilized*, not removed, and replaced by an error on editions 2021 and below.
## Implementation history
* History from before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR] that was reverted.
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94927
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94951
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94974
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95008
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/97295
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/98633
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/99731
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102394
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100526
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/100538
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/102998
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103405
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/103293
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/107251
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/110568
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115677
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117743
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/117770
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/118191
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/119554
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/129394
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132828
* https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1179
* https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1251
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rustfmt/pull/5910
[original stabilization PR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/94927
## Adoption history
### In the compiler
* History before March 14, 2022 can be found in the [original stabilization PR].
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/115983
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116549
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/116688
### Outside of the compiler
* https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/pull/11750
* [rspack](https://github.com/web-infra-dev/rspack)
* [risingwave](https://github.com/risingwavelabs/risingwave)
* [dylint](https://github.com/trailofbits/dylint)
* [convex-backend](https://github.com/get-convex/convex-backend)
* [tikv](https://github.com/tikv/tikv)
* [Daft](https://github.com/Eventual-Inc/Daft)
* [greptimedb](https://github.com/GreptimeTeam/greptimedb)
## Tests
<details>
### Intentional restrictions
[`partially-macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/partially-macro-expanded.rs), [`macro-expanded.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/macro-expanded.rs): it is possible to use macros to expand to both the pattern and the expression inside a let chain, but not to the entire `let pat = expr` operand.
[`parens.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/parens.rs): `if (let pat = expr)` is not allowed in chains
[`ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ensure-that-let-else-does-not-interact-with-let-chains.rs): `let...else` doesn't support chaining.
### Overlap with match guards
[`move-guard-if-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/move-guard-if-let-chain.rs): test for the `use moved value` error working well in match guards. could maybe be extended with let chains that have more than one `let`
[`shadowing.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/shadowing.rs): shadowing in if let guards works as expected
[`ast-validate-guards.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-validate-guards.rs): let chains in match guards require the match guards feature gate
### Simple cases from the early days
PR #88642 has added some tests with very simple usages of `let else`, mostly as regression tests to early bugs.
[`then-else-blocks.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/then-else-blocks.rs)
[`ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/ast-lowering-does-not-wrap-let-chains.rs)
[`issue-90722.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-90722.rs)
[`issue-92145.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-92145.rs)
### Drop order/MIR scoping tests
[`issue-100276.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/issue-100276.rs): let expressions on RHS aren't terminating scopes
[`drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order.rs): exhaustive temporary drop order test for various Rust constructs, including let chains
[`scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/scope.rs): match guard scoping test
[`drop-scope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/drop-scope.rs): another match guard scoping test, ensuring that temporaries in if-let guards live for the arm
[`drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/drop/drop_order_if_let_rescope.rs): if let rescoping on edition 2024, including chains
[`mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/mir_let_chains_drop_order.rs): comprehensive drop order test for let chains, distinguishes editions 2021 and 2024.
[`issue-99938.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/issue-99938.rs), [`issue-99852.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/mir/issue-99852.rs) both bad MIR ICEs fixed by #102394
### Linting
[`irrefutable-lets.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/irrefutable-lets.rs): trailing and leading irrefutable let patterns get linted for, others don't. The lint is turned off for `else if`.
[`issue-121070-let-range.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/lint/issue-121070-let-range.rs): regression test for false positive of the unused parens lint, precedence requires the `()`s here
### Parser: intentional restrictions
[`disallowed-positions.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/2128d8df0e858edcbe6a0861bac948b88b7fabc3/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs): `let` in expression context is rejected everywhere except at the top level
[`invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/invalid-let-in-a-valid-let-context.rs): nested `let` is not allowed (let's are no legal expressions just because they are allowed in `if` and `while`).
### Parser: recovery
[`issue-103381.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/issues/issue-103381.rs): Graceful recovery of incorrect chaining of `if` and `if let`
[`semi-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/semi-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray `;`s in let chains give nice errors (`if_chain!` users might be accustomed to `;`s)
[`deli-ident-issue-1.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/deli-ident-issue-1.rs), [`brace-in-let-chain.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/parser/brace-in-let-chain.rs): Ensure that stray unclosed `{`s in let chains give nice errors and hints
### Misc
[`conflicting_bindings.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/pattern/usefulness/conflicting_bindings.rs): the conflicting bindings check also works in let chains. Personally, I'd extend it to chains with multiple let's as well.
[`let-chains-attr.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/expr/if/attrs/let-chains-attr.rs): attributes work on let chains
### Tangential tests with `#![feature(let_chains)]`
[`if-let.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/coverage/branch/if-let.rs): MC/DC coverage tests for let chains
[`logical_or_in_conditional.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/mir-opt/building/logical_or_in_conditional.rs): not really about let chains, more about dropping/scoping behaviour of `||`
[`stringify.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs): exhaustive test of the `stringify` macro
[`expanded-interpolation.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-interpolation.rs), [`expanded-exhaustive.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/unpretty/expanded-exhaustive.rs): Exhaustive test of `-Zunpretty`
[`diverges-not.rs`](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/4adafcf40aa6064d2bbcb44bc1a50b3b1e86e5e0/tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-0000-never_patterns/diverges-not.rs): Never type, mostly tangential to let chains
</details>
## Possible future work
* There is proposals to allow `if let Pat(bindings) = expr {}` to be written as `if expr is Pat(bindings) {}` ([RFC 3573]). `if let` chains are a natural extension of the already existing `if let` syntax, and I'd argue orthogonal towards `is` syntax.
* https://github.com/rust-lang/lang-team/issues/297
* One could have similar chaining inside `let ... else` statements. There is no proposed RFC for this however, nor is it implemented on nightly.
* Match guards have the `if` keyword as well, but on stable Rust, they don't support `let`. The functionality is available via an unstable feature ([`if_let_guard` tracking issue]). Stabilization of let chains affects this feature in so far as match guards containing let chains now only need the `if_let_guard` feature gate be present instead of also the `let_chains` feature (NOTE: this PR doesn't implement this simplification, it's left for future work).
[RFC 3573]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3573
[`if_let_guard` tracking issue]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/51114
## Open questions / blockers
- [ ] bad recovery if you don't put a `let` (I don't think this is a blocker): [#117977](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117977)
- [x] An instance where a temporary lives shorter than with nested ifs, breaking compilation: [#103476](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/103476). Personally I don't think this is a blocker either, as it's an edge case. Edit: turns out to not reproduce in edition 2025 any more, due to let rescoping. regression test added in #133093
- [x] One should probably extend the tests for `move-guard-if-let-chain.rs` and `conflicting_bindings.rs` to have chains with multiple let's: done in 133093
- [x] Parsing rejection tests: addressed by https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/132828
- [x] [Style](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/346005-t-style/topic/let.20chains.20stabilization.20and.20formatting): https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/139456
- [x] https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/86730 explicitly mentions `let_else`. I think we can live with `let pat = expr` not evaluating as `expr` for macro_rules macros, especially given that `let pat = expr` is not a legal expression anywhere except inside `if` and `while`.
- [x] Documentation in the reference: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1740
- [x] Add chapter to the Rust 2024 [edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide/pull/337
- [x] Resolve open questions on desired drop order.
[original reference PR]: https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/pull/1179
[edition guide]: https://github.com/rust-lang/edition-guide
|
|
Extends the change from #139653, which was on expressions, to literals.
Fixes #140098.
|
|
Remove `token::{Open,Close}Delim`
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
By replacing them with `{Open,Close}{Param,Brace,Bracket,Invisible}`.
PR #137902 made `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind` by
replacing the compound `BinOp{,Eq}(BinOpToken)` variants with fieldless
variants `Plus`, `Minus`, `Star`, etc. This commit does a similar thing
with delimiters. It also makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`parser::TokenType`.
This requires a few new methods:
- `TokenKind::is_{,open_,close_}delim()` replace various kinds of
pattern matches.
- `Delimiter::as_{open,close}_token_kind` are used to convert
`Delimiter` values to `TokenKind`.
Despite these additions, it's a net reduction in lines of code. This is
because e.g. `token::OpenParen` is so much shorter than
`token::OpenDelim(Delimiter::Parenthesis)` that many multi-line forms
reduce to single line forms. And many places where the number of lines
doesn't change are still easier to read, just because the names are
shorter, e.g.:
```
- } else if self.token != token::CloseDelim(Delimiter::Brace) {
+ } else if self.token != token::CloseBrace {
```
|
|
|
|
not lint break with label and unsafe block
fixes #137414
we can't label unsafe blocks, so that we can do not lint them
|
|
|
|
|
|
Detect and provide suggestion for `&raw EXPR`
When emitting an error in the parser, and we detect that the previous token was `raw` and we *could* have consumed `const`/`mut`, suggest that this may have been a mistyped raw ref expr. To do this, we add `const`/`mut` to the expected token set when parsing `&raw` as an expression (which does not affect the "good path" of parsing, for the record).
This is kind of a rudimentary error improvement, since it doesn't actually attempt to recover anything, leading to some other knock-on errors b/c we still treat `&raw` as the expression that was parsed... but at least we add the suggestion! I don't think the parser grammar means we can faithfully recover `&raw EXPR` early, i.e. during `parse_expr_borrow`.
Fixes #133231
|
|
nnethercote:rm-Nonterminal-and-TokenKind-Interpolated, r=petrochenkov
Remove `Nonterminal` and `TokenKind::Interpolated`
A third attempt at this; the first attempt was #96724 and the second was #114647.
r? `@ghost`
|
|
Fixes #139495.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the AST, currently we use `BinOpKind` within `ExprKind::AssignOp` and
`AssocOp::AssignOp`, even though this allows some nonsensical
combinations. E.g. there is no `&&=` operator. Likewise for HIR and
THIR.
This commit introduces `AssignOpKind` which only includes the ten
assignable operators, and uses it in `ExprKind::AssignOp` and
`AssocOp::AssignOp`. (And does similar things for `hir::ExprKind` and
`thir::ExprKind`.) This avoids the possibility of nonsensical
combinations, as seen by the removal of the `bug!` case in
`lang_item_for_binop`.
The commit is mostly plumbing, including:
- Adds an `impl From<AssignOpKind> for BinOpKind` (AST) and `impl
From<AssignOp> for BinOp` (MIR/THIR).
- `BinOpCategory` can now be created from both `BinOpKind` and
`AssignOpKind`.
- Replaces the `IsAssign` type with `Op`, which has more information and
a few methods.
- `suggest_swapping_lhs_and_rhs`: moves the condition to the call site,
it's easier that way.
- `check_expr_inner`: had to factor out some code into a separate
method.
I'm on the fence about whether avoiding the nonsensical combinations is
worth the extra code.
|
|
|
|
`NtBlock` is the last remaining variant of `Nonterminal`, so once it is
gone then `Nonterminal` can be removed as well.
|
|
This makes the expression re-parsing more like how it's originally done
in `parse_nonterminal`.
|
|
In favour of the similar method on `Parser`, which works on things
other than identifiers and lifetimes.
|
|
Notes about tests:
- tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2294-if-let-guard/feature-gate.rs: some messages are
now duplicated due to repeated parsing.
- tests/ui/rfcs/rfc-2497-if-let-chains/disallowed-positions.rs: ditto.
- `tests/ui/proc-macro/macro-rules-derive-cfg.rs`: the diff looks large
but the only difference is the insertion of a single
invisible-delimited group around a metavar.
- `tests/ui/attributes/nonterminal-expansion.rs`: a slight span
degradation, somehow related to the recent massive attr parsing
rewrite (#135726). I couldn't work out exactly what is going wrong,
but I don't think it's worth holding things up for a single slightly
suboptimal error message.
|
|
Fix closure recovery for missing block when return type is specified
Firstly, fix the `is_array_like_block` condition to make sure we're actually recovering a mistyped *block* rather than some other delimited expression. This fixes #138748.
Secondly, split out the recovery of missing braces on a closure body into a separate recovery. Right now, the suggestion `"you might have meant to write this as part of a block"` originates from `suggest_fixes_misparsed_for_loop_head`, which feels kinda brittle and coincidental since AFAICT that recovery wasn't ever really intended to fix this.
We also can make this `MachineApplicable` in this case.
Fixes #138748
r? `@fmease` or reassign if you're busy/don't wanna review this
|
|
StructLiteralNeedingParens is no longer reachable always giving
precedence to StructLiteralNotAllowedHere.
As an aside: The former error struct shouldn't've existed in the
first place. We should've just used the latter in this branch.
|
|
thanks to the removal of type ascription.
|
|
|
|
block
|
|
Add support for postfix yield expressions
We've been having a discussion about whether we want postfix yield, or want to stick with prefix yield, or have both. I figured it's easy enough to support both for now and let us play around with them while the feature is still experimental.
This PR treats `yield x` and `x.yield` as semantically equivalent. There was a suggestion to make `yield x` have a `()` type (so it only works in coroutines with `Resume = ()`. I think that'd be worth trying, either in a later PR, or before this one merges, depending on people's opinions.
#43122
|
|
|
|
Co-authored-by: Travis Cross <tc@traviscross.com>
|
|
This involved fixing the span when parsing .yield
|
|
moving it to the header.
|
|
|
|
We had a discussion[1] today about whether postfix yield would make sense.
It's easy enough to support both in the parser, so we might as well have
both and see how people use it while the feature is experimental.
[1]: https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/channel/481571-t-lang.2Fgen/topic/postfix-yield/with/505231568
|
|
This allows usage in rustfmt and rustfmt forks.
|
|
Remove `NtItem` and `NtStmt`
Another piece of #124141.
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
This involves replacing `nt_pretty_printing_compatibility_hack` with
`stream_pretty_printing_compatibility_hack`.
The handling of statements in `transcribe` is slightly different to
other nonterminal kinds, due to the lack of `from_ast` implementation
for empty statements.
Notable test changes:
- `tests/ui/proc-macro/expand-to-derive.rs`: the diff looks large but
the only difference is the insertion of a single invisible-delimited
group around a metavar.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 12 pull requests
Successful merges:
- #135767 (Future incompatibility warning `unsupported_fn_ptr_calling_conventions`: Also warn in dependencies)
- #137852 (Remove layouting dead code for non-array SIMD types.)
- #137863 (Fix pretty printing of unsafe binders)
- #137882 (do not build additional stage on compiler paths)
- #137894 (Revert "store ScalarPair via memset when one side is undef and the other side can be memset")
- #137902 (Make `ast::TokenKind` more like `lexer::TokenKind`)
- #137921 (Subtree update of `rust-analyzer`)
- #137922 (A few cleanups after the removal of `cfg(not(parallel))`)
- #137939 (fix order on shl impl)
- #137946 (Fix docker run-local docs)
- #137955 (Always allow rustdoc-json tests to contain long lines)
- #137958 (triagebot.toml: Don't label `test/rustdoc-json` as A-rustdoc-search)
r? `@ghost`
`@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
|
|
Fix parsing of ranges after unary operators
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/134899.
This PR aligns the parsing for unary `!` and `-` and `*` with how unary `&` is already parsed [here](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/5c0a6e68cfdad859615c2888de76505f13e6f01b/compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs#L848-L854).
|
|
For consistency with `rustc_lexer::TokenKind::Bang`, and because other
`ast::TokenKind` variants generally have syntactic names instead of
semantic names (e.g. `Star` and `DotDot` instead of `Mul` and `Range`).
|
|
`BinOpToken` is badly named, because it only covers the assignable
binary ops and excludes comparisons and `&&`/`||`. Its use in
`ast::TokenKind` does allow a small amount of code sharing, but it's a
clumsy factoring.
This commit removes `ast::TokenKind::BinOp{,Eq}`, replacing each one
with 10 individual variants. This makes `ast::TokenKind` more similar to
`rustc_lexer::TokenKind`, which has individual variants for all
operators.
Although the number of lines of code increases, the number of chars
decreases due to the frequent use of shorter names like `token::Plus`
instead of `token::BinOp(BinOpToken::Plus)`.
|
|
Remove `NtPat`, `NtMeta`, and `NtPath`
Another part of #124141.
r? `@petrochenkov`
|
|
|
|
To match `ExprKind::Cast`, and because a semantic name makes more sense
here than a syntactic name.
|
|
It makes `AssocOp` more similar to `ExprKind` and makes things a little
simpler. And the semantic names make more sense here than the syntactic
names.
|
|
It mirrors `ExprKind::Binary`, and contains a `BinOpKind`. This makes
`AssocOp` more like `ExprKind`. Note that the variants removed from
`AssocOp` are all named differently to `BinOpToken`, e.g. `Multiply`
instead of `Mul`, so that's an inconsistency removed.
The commit adds `precedence` and `fixity` methods to `BinOpKind`, and
calls them from the corresponding methods in `AssocOp`. This avoids the
need to create an `AssocOp` from a `BinOpKind` in a bunch of places, and
`AssocOp::from_ast_binop` is removed.
`AssocOp::to_ast_binop` is also no longer needed.
Overall things are shorter and nicer.
|
|
`AssocOp::AssignOp` contains a `BinOpToken`. `ExprKind::AssignOp`
contains a `BinOpKind`. Given that `AssocOp` is basically a cut-down
version of `ExprKind`, it makes sense to make `AssocOp` more like
`ExprKind`. Especially given that `AssocOp` and `BinOpKind` use semantic
operation names (e.g. `Mul`, `Div`), but `BinOpToken` uses syntactic
names (e.g. `Star`, `Slash`).
This results in more concise code, and removes the need for various
conversions. (Note that the removed functions `hirbinop2assignop` and
`astbinop2assignop` are semantically identical, because `hir::BinOp` is
just a synonum for `ast::BinOp`!)
The only downside to this is that it allows the possibility of some
nonsensical combinations, such as `AssocOp::AssignOp(BinOpKind::Lt)`.
But `ExprKind::AssignOp` already has that problem. The problem can be
fixed for both types in the future with some effort, by introducing an
`AssignOpKind` type.
|
|
|
