| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
Initial support for `..=` syntax
#28237
This PR adds `..=` as a synonym for `...` in patterns and expressions.
Since `...` in expressions was never stable, we now issue a warning.
cc @durka
r? @aturon
|
|
... or ..=
|
|
Add ..= to the parser
Add ..= to libproc_macro
Add ..= to ICH
Highlight ..= in rustdoc
Update impl Debug for RangeInclusive to ..=
Replace `...` to `..=` in range docs
Make the dotdoteq warning point to the ...
Add warning for ... in expressions
Updated more tests to the ..= syntax
Updated even more tests to the ..= syntax
Updated the inclusive_range entry in unstable book
|
|
|
|
|
|
Parse nested closure with two consecutive parameter lists properly
This is a followup of #44332.
---
Currently, in nightly, this does not compile:
```rust
fn main() {
let f = |_||x, y| x+y;
println!("{}", f(())(1, 2)); // should print 3
}
```
`|_||x, y| x+y` should be parsed as `|_| (|x, y| x+y)`, but the parser didn't accept `||` between `_` and `x`. This patch fixes the problem.
r? @petrochenkov
|
|
Add visibility to span for macros 2.0
cc https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/rustfmt/issues/1949.
r? @nrc
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lambda expressions honor no struct literal restriction
This is a fix for #43412 if we decide that it is indeed a bug :)
closes #43412
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point out missing if conditional
On a case where an else conditional is missing, point this out
instead of the token immediately after the (incorrect) else block:
```
error: missing condition for `if` statemementt push fork -f
--> $DIR/issue-13483.rs:16:5
|
13 | } else if {
| ^ expected if condition here
```
instead of
```
error: expected `{`, found `else`
--> ../../src/test/ui/issue-13483.rs:14:7
|
14 | } else {
| ^^^^
```
Fix #13483.
|
|
syntax: Relax path grammar
TLDR: Accept the disambiguator `::` in "type" paths (`Type::<Args>`), accept the disambiguator `::` before parenthesized generic arguments (`Fn::(Args)`).
The "turbofish" disambiguator `::<>` in expression paths is a necessary evil required for path parsing to be both simple and to give reasonable results.
Since paths in expressions usually refer to values (but not necessarily, e.g. `Struct::<u8> { field: 0 }` is disambiguated, but refers to a type), people often consider `::<>` to be inherent to *values*, and not *expressions* and want to write disambiguated paths for values even in contexts where disambiguation is not strictly necessary, for example when a path is passed to a macro `m!(Vec::<i32>::new)`.
The problem is that currently, if the disambiguator is not *required*, then it's *prohibited*. This results in confusion - see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41740, https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/macro-path-uses-novel-syntax/5561.
This PR makes the disambiguator *optional* instead of prohibited in contexts where it's not strictly required, so people can pass paths to macros in whatever form they consider natural (e.g. disambiguated form for value paths).
This PR also accepts the disambiguator in paths with parenthesized arguments (`Fn::(Args)`) for consistency and to simplify testing of stuff like https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/41856#issuecomment-301219194.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/41740
cc @rust-lang/lang
r? @nikomatsakis
|
|
|
|
|
|
On a case where an else conditional is missing, point this out
instead of the token immediately after the (incorrect) else block:
```
error: missing condition for `if` statemementt push fork -f
--> $DIR/issue-13483.rs:16:5
|
13 | } else if {
| ^ expected if condition here
```
instead of
```
error: expected `{`, found `else`
--> ../../src/test/ui/issue-13483.rs:14:7
|
14 | } else {
| ^^^^
```
|
|
|
|
Like #43008 (f668999), but _much more aggressive_.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rollup of 8 pull requests
- Successful merges: #43409, #43501, #43509, #43512, #43513, #43536, #43544, #43549
- Failed merges:
|
|
Add Span to ast::WhereClause
This PR adds `Span` field to `ast::WhereClause`. The motivation here is to make rustfmt's life easier when recovering comments before and after where clause.
r? @nrc
|
|
Throw errors when doc comments are added where they're unused
#42617
|
|
This is then later used by `proc_macro` to generate a new
`proc_macro::TokenTree` which preserves span information. Unfortunately this
isn't a bullet-proof approach as it doesn't handle the case when there's still
other attributes on the item, especially inner attributes.
Despite this the intention here is to solve the primary use case for procedural
attributes, attached to functions as outer attributes, likely bare. In this
situation we should be able to now yield a lossless stream of tokens to preserve
span information.
|
|
|
|
This commit adds a new field to the `Item` AST node in libsyntax to optionally
contain the original token stream that the item itself was parsed from. This is
currently `None` everywhere but is intended for use later with procedural
macros.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Better diagnostics and recovery for `mut ref` in patterns
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/43286
Supersedes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/43451
r? @GuillaumeGomez
|
|
|
|
|
|
Point at `:` when using it instead of `;`
When triggering type ascription in such a way that we can infer a
statement end was intended, add a suggestion for the change. Always
point out the reason for the expectation of a type is due to type
ascription.
Fix #42057, #41928.
|
|
Adjust new suggestions to the suggestion guidelines
Addresses https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/42033#discussion_r127694915
guidelines are https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master//src/librustc_errors/diagnostic.rs#L212-L224
|
