When we recover from a pattern parse error, or a pattern uses `..`, we keep track of that and affect resolution error for missing bindings that could have been provided by that pattern. We differentiate between `..` and parse recovery. We silence resolution errors likely caused by the pattern parse error.
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `title` in this scope
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:19:30
|
LL | println!("[{}]({})", title, url);
| ^^^^^ not found in this scope
|
note: `Website` has a field `title` which could have been included in this pattern, but it wasn't
--> $DIR/struct-pattern-with-missing-fields-resolve-error.rs:17:12
|
LL | / struct Website {
LL | | url: String,
LL | | title: Option<String> ,
| | ----- defined here
LL | | }
| |_-
...
LL | if let Website { url, .. } = website {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ this pattern doesn't include `title`, which is available in `Website`
```
Fix#74863.
Add test to check unicode identifier version
This adds a test to verify which version of Unicode is used for identifiers. This is part of the language, documented at https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/identifiers.html#r-ident.unicode. The version here often changes implicitly due to dependency updates pulling in new versions, and thus we often don't notice it has changed leaving the documentation out of date. The intent here is to have a canary to give us a notification when it changes so that we can update the documentation.
Initial implementation of `#[feature(default_field_values]`, proposed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3681.
Support default fields in enum struct variant
Allow default values in an enum struct variant definition:
```rust
pub enum Bar {
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Allow using `..` without a base on an enum struct variant
```rust
Bar::Foo { .. }
```
`#[derive(Default)]` doesn't account for these as it is still gating `#[default]` only being allowed on unit variants.
Support `#[derive(Default)]` on enum struct variants with all defaulted fields
```rust
pub enum Bar {
#[default]
Foo {
bar: S = S,
baz: i32 = 42 + 3,
}
}
```
Check for missing fields in typeck instead of mir_build.
Expand test with `const` param case (needs `generic_const_exprs` enabled).
Properly instantiate MIR const
The following works:
```rust
struct S<A> {
a: Vec<A> = Vec::new(),
}
S::<i32> { .. }
```
Add lint for default fields that will always fail const-eval
We *allow* this to happen for API writers that might want to rely on users'
getting a compile error when using the default field, different to the error
that they would get when the field isn't default. We could change this to
*always* error instead of being a lint, if we wanted.
This will *not* catch errors for partially evaluated consts, like when the
expression relies on a const parameter.
Suggestions when encountering `Foo { .. }` without `#[feature(default_field_values)]`:
- Suggest adding a base expression if there are missing fields.
- Suggest enabling the feature if all the missing fields have optional values.
- Suggest removing `..` if there are no missing fields.
Gate async fn trait bound modifier on `async_trait_bounds`
This PR moves `async Fn()` trait bounds into a new feature gate: `feature(async_trait_bounds)`. The general vibe is that we will most likely stabilize the `feature(async_closure)` *without* the `async Fn()` trait bound modifier, so we need to gate that separately.
We're trying to work on the general vision of `async` trait bound modifier general in: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3710, however that RFC still needs more time for consensus to converge, and we've decided that the value that users get from calling the bound `async Fn()` is *not really* worth blocking landing async closures in general.
Change `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant
Cleanups for simplifying https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/131808
Basically changes `AttrArgs::Eq` to a struct variant and then avoids several matches on `AttrArgsEq` in favor of methods on it. This will make future refactorings simpler, as they can either keep methods or switch to field accesses without having to restructure code
Eliminate magic numbers from expression precedence
Context: see https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/133140.
This PR continues on backporting Syn's expression precedence design into rustc. Rustc's design used mysterious integer quantities represented variously as `i8` or `usize` (e.g. `PREC_CLOSURE = -40i8`), a special significance around `0` that is never named, and an extra `PREC_FORCE_PAREN` precedence level that does not correspond to any expression. Syn's design uses a C-like enum with variants that clearly correspond to specific sets of expression kinds.
This PR is a refactoring that has no intended behavior change on its own, but it unblocks other precedence work that rustc's precedence design was poorly suited to accommodate.
- Asymmetrical precedence, so that a pretty-printer can tell `(return 1) + 1` needs parens but `1 + return 1` does not.
- Squashing the `Closure` and `Jump` cases into a single precedence level.
- Numerous remaining false positives and false negatives in rustc pretty-printer's parenthesization of macro metavariables, for example in `$e < rhs` where $e is `lhs as Thing<T>`.
FYI `@fmease` — you don't need to review if rustbot picks someone else, but you mentioned being interested in the followup PRs.
Improve span handling in `parse_expr_bottom`.
`parse_expr_bottom` stores `this.token.span` in `lo`, but then fails to use it in many places where it could. This commit fixes that, and likewise (to a smaller extent) in `parse_ty_common`.
r? ``@spastorino``
`parse_expr_bottom` stores `this.token.span` in `lo`, but then fails to
use it in many places where it could. This commit fixes that, and
likewise (to a smaller extent) in `parse_ty_common`.
Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence
The representation of expression precedence in rustc_ast has been an obstacle to further improvements in the pretty-printer (continuing from #119105 and #119427).
Previously the operation of *"does this expression have lower precedence than that one"* (relevant for parenthesis insertion in macro-generated syntax trees) consisted of 3 steps:
1. Convert `Expr` to `ExprPrecedence` using `.precedence()`
2. Convert `ExprPrecedence` to `i8` using `.order()`
3. Compare using `<`
As far as I can guess, the reason for the separation between `precedence()` and `order()` was so that both `rustc_ast::Expr` and `rustc_hir::Expr` could convert as straightforwardly as possible to the same `ExprPrecedence` enum, and then the more finicky logic performed by `order` could be present just once.
The mapping between `Expr` and `ExprPrecedence` was intended to be as straightforward as possible:
```rust
match self.kind {
ExprKind::Closure(..) => ExprPrecedence::Closure,
...
}
```
although there were exceptions of both many-to-one, and one-to-many:
```rust
ExprKind::Underscore => ExprPrecedence::Path,
ExprKind::Path(..) => ExprPrecedence::Path,
...
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Prefix) => ExprPrecedence::Match,
ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Postfix) => ExprPrecedence::PostfixMatch,
```
Where the nature of `ExprPrecedence` becomes problematic is when a single expression kind might be associated with multiple different precedence levels depending on context (outside the expression) and contents (inside the expression). For example consider what is the precedence of an ExprKind::Closure `$closure`. Well, on the left-hand side of a binary operator it would need parentheses in order to avoid the trailing binary operator being absorbed into the closure body: `($closure) + Rhs`, so the precedence is something lower than that of `+`. But on the right-hand side of a binary operator, a closure is just a straightforward prefix expression like a unary op, which is a relatively high precedence level, higher than binops but lower than method calls: `Lhs + $closure` is fine without parens but `($closure).method()` needs them. But as a third case, if the closure contains an explicit return type, then the precedence is an even higher level than that, never needing parenthesization even in a binop left-hand side or method call: `|| -> bool { false } + Rhs` or `|| -> bool { false }.method()`.
You can see that trying to capture all of this resolution about expressions into `ExprPrecedence` violates the intention of `ExprPrecedence` being a straightforward one-to-one correspondence from each AST and HIR `ExprKind` variant. It would be possible to attempt that by doing stuff like `ExprPrecedence::Closure(Side::Leading, ReturnType::No)`, but I don't foresee the original envisioned benefit of the `precedence()`/`order()` distinction being retained in this approach. Instead I want to move toward a model that Syn has been using successfully. In Syn, there is a Precedence enum but it differs from rustc in the following ways:
- There are [relatively few variants](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/precedence.rs#L11-L47) compared to rustc's `ExprPrecedence`. For example there is no distinction at the precedence level between returns and closures, or between loops and method calls.
- We distinguish between [leading](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L293) and [trailing](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L309) precedence, taking into account an expression's context such as what token follows it (for various syntactic bail-outs in Rust's grammar, like ambiguities around break-with-value) and how it relates to operators from the surrounding syntax tree.
- There are no hardcoded mysterious integer quantities like rustc's `PREC_CLOSURE = -40`. All precedence comparisons are performed via PartialOrd on a C-like enum.
This PR is just a first step in these changes. As you can tell from Syn, I definitely think there is value in having a dedicated type to represent precedence, instead of what `order()` is doing with `i8`. But that is a whole separate adventure because rustc_ast doesn't even agree consistently on `i8` being the type for precedence order; `AssocOp::precedence` instead uses `usize` and there are casts in both directions. It is likely that a type called `ExprPrecedence` will re-appear, but it will look substantially different from the one that existed before this PR.
There is a not-very-useful layering in the lexer, where
`TokenTreesReader` contains a `StringReader`. This commit combines them
and names the result `Lexer`, which is a more obvious name for it.
The methods of `Lexer` are now split across `mod.rs` and `tokentrees.rs`
which isn't ideal, but it doesn't seem worth moving a bunch of code to
avoid it.
With the insertion of a new chapter 17 on async and await to _The Rust
Programming Language_, references in compiler output to later chapters
need to be updated to avoid confusing users. Redirects exist so that
users who click old links will end up in the right place anyway, but
this way users will be directed to the right URL in the first place.
Current places where `Interpolated` is used are going to change to
instead use invisible delimiters. This prepares for that.
- It adds invisible delimiter cases to the `can_begin_*`/`may_be_*`
methods and the `failed_to_match_macro` that are equivalent to the
existing `Interpolated` cases.
- It adds panics/asserts in some places where invisible delimiters
should never occur.
- In `Parser::parse_struct_fields` it excludes an ident + invisible
delimiter from special consideration in an error message, because
that's quite different to an ident + paren/brace/bracket.
Pasted metavariables are wrapped in invisible delimiters, which
pretty-print as empty strings, and changing that can break some proc
macros. But error messages saying "expected identifer, found ``" are
bad. So this commit adds support for metavariables in `TokenDescription`
so they print as "metavariable" in error messages, instead of "``".
It's not used meaningfully yet, but will be needed to get rid of
interpolated tokens.
It was added in #123752 to handle some cases involving emoji, but it
isn't necessary because it's always treated the same as
`TokenKind::InvalidIdent`. This commit removes it, which makes things a
little simpler.
Trim whitespace in RemoveLet primary span
Separate `RemoveLet` span into primary span for `let` and removal suggestion span for `let `, so that primary span does not include whitespace.
Fixes: #133031
If a macro statement has been parsed after `else`, suggest a missing `if`:
```
error: expected `{`, found `falsy`
--> $DIR/else-no-if.rs:47:12
|
LL | } else falsy! {} {
| ---- ^^^^^
| |
| expected an `if` or a block after this `else`
|
help: add an `if` if this is the condition of a chained `else if` statement
|
LL | } else if falsy! {} {
| ++
```
