| Age | Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Lines |
|---|
|
`syntax_expand` -> `rustc_expand`
`syntax_pos` -> `rustc_span`
`syntax_ext` -> `rustc_builtin_macros`
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is done by moving some data definitions to syntax::expand.
|
|
(Or more precisely, a pair of such traits: one for `derive(PartialEq)` and one
for `derive(Eq)`.)
((The addition of the second marker trait, `StructuralEq`, is largely a hack to
work-around `fn (&T)` not implementing `PartialEq` and `Eq`; see also issue
rust-lang/rust#46989; otherwise I would just check if `Eq` is implemented.))
Note: this does not use trait fulfillment error-reporting machinery; it just
uses the trait system to determine if the ADT was tagged or not. (Nonetheless, I
have kept an `on_unimplemented` message on the new trait for structural_match
check, even though it is currently not used.)
Note also: this does *not* resolve the ICE from rust-lang/rust#65466, as noted
in a comment added in this commit. Further work is necessary to resolve that and
other problems with the structural match checking, especially to do so without
breaking stable code (adapted from test fn-ptr-is-structurally-matchable.rs):
```rust
fn r_sm_to(_: &SM) {}
fn main() {
const CFN6: Wrap<fn(&SM)> = Wrap(r_sm_to);
let input: Wrap<fn(&SM)> = Wrap(r_sm_to);
match Wrap(input) {
Wrap(CFN6) => {}
Wrap(_) => {}
};
}
```
where we would hit a problem with the strategy of unconditionally checking for
`PartialEq` because the type `for <'a> fn(&'a SM)` does not currently even
*implement* `PartialEq`.
----
added review feedback:
* use an or-pattern
* eschew `return` when tail position will do.
* don't need fresh_expansion; just add `structural_match` to appropriate `allow_internal_unstable` attributes.
also fixed example in doc comment so that it actually compiles.
|
|
|
|
|
|
It was never used
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replace them with equivalents of `Span::{def_site,call_site}` from proc macro API.
The new API is much less error prone and doesn't rely on macros having default transparency.
|
|
Also make them generally more hygienic with name resolution.
|
|
For naming consistency with everything else in this area
|
|
|
|
|
|
infrastructure to elsewhere
|
|
|
|
MetaItem.span was always equivalent
|
|
|
|
Because this function is hot.
Also remove the dead `ty_option` function.
|
|
Most involving `Symbol::intern` on string literals.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It's so confusing to have everything having the same name, at least while refactoring.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Previously, two comparison operations would be generated for each field, each of which could delegate to another derived PartialOrd. Now we use ordering and optional chaining to ensure each pair of fields is only compared once.
|
|
Provide better names for builtin deriving-generated attributes
First attempt at fixing #49967
Not in love with any choices here, don't be shy if you aren't happy with anything :)
I've tested that this produces nicer names in documentation, and that it no longer has issues conflicting with constants with the same name. (I guess we _could_ make a test for that... unsure if that would be valuable)
In all cases I took the names from the methods as declared in the relevant trait.
In some cases I had to prepend the names with _ otherwise there were errors about un-used variables. I'm uneasy with the inconsistency... do they all need to be like that? Is there a way to generate an alternate impl or use a different name (`_`?) in the cases where the arguments are not used?
Lastly the gensym addition to Ident I implemented largely as suggested, but I want to point out it's a little circuitous (at least, as far as I understand it). `cx.ident_of(name)` is just `Ident::from_str`, so we create an Ident then another Ident from it. `Ident::with_empty_ctxt(Symbol::gensym(string))` may or may not be equivalent, I don't know if it's important to intern it _then_ gensym it. It seems like either we could use that, or if we do want a new method to make this convenient, it could be on Ident instead (`from_str_gensymed`?)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Like #43008 (f668999), but _much more aggressive_.
|
|
|
|
|
