| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Hard-code `char::is_control`
Split off from https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/145219
According to
https://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value, the set of codepoints in `Cc` will never change. So we can hard-code the patterns to match against instead of using a table.
This doesn't change the generated assembly, since the lookup table is small enough that[ LLVM is able to inline the whole search](https://godbolt.org/z/bG8dM37YG). But this does reduce the chance of regressions if LLVM's heuristics change in the future, and means less generated Rust code checked in to `unicode-data.rs`.
|
|
According to
https://www.unicode.org/policies/stability_policy.html#Property_Value,
the set of codepoints in `Cc` will never change. So we can hard-code
the patterns to match against instead of using a table.
|
|
|
|
|
|
`use` declarations will be reformatted in #125443. Very rarely, there is
a desire to force a group of `use` declarations together in a way that
auto-formatting will break up. E.g. when you want a single comment to
apply to a group. #126776 dealt with all of these in the codebase,
ensuring that no comments intended for multiple `use` declarations would
end up in the wrong place. But some people were unhappy with it.
This commit uses `#[rustfmt::skip]` to create these custom `use` groups
in an idiomatic way for a few of the cases changed in #126776. This
works because rustfmt treats any `use` item annotated with
`#[rustfmt::skip]` as a barrier and won't reorder other `use` items
around it.
|
|
There are some comments describing multiple subsequent `use` items. When
the big `use` reformatting happens some of these `use` items will be
reordered, possibly moving them away from the comment. With this
additional level of formatting it's not really feasible to have comments
of this type. This commit removes them in various ways:
- merging separate `use` items when appropriate;
- inserting blank lines between the comment and the first `use` item;
- outright deletion (for comments that are relatively low-value);
- adding a separate "top-level" comment.
We also entirely skip formatting for four library files that contain
nothing but `pub use` re-exports, where reordering would be painful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
My understanding is that these API are perma unstable, so it doesn't
make sense to pollute docs & IDE completion[1] with them.
[1]: https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/6738
|
|
|
