rustdoc: give proc-macros their own pages
related to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/49553 but i don't think it'll fix it
Currently, rustdoc doesn't expose proc-macros all that well. In the source crate, only their definition function is exposed, but when re-exported, they're treated as a macro! This is an awkward situation in all accounts. This PR checks functions to see whether they have any of `#[proc_macro]`, `#[proc_macro_attribute]`, or `#[proc_macro_derive]`, and exposes them as macros instead. In addition, attributes and derives are exposed differently than other macros, getting their own item-type, CSS class, and module heading.
Function-like proc-macros are lumped in with `macro_rules!` macros, but they get a different declaration block (i'm open to tweaking this, it's just what i thought of given how function-proc-macros operate):
Proc-macro attributes and derives get their own pages, with a representative declaration block. Derive macros also show off their helper attributes:
There's one wrinkle which this PR doesn't address, which is why i didn't mark this as fixing the linked issue. Currently, proc-macros don't expose their attributes or source span across crates, so while rustdoc knows they exist, that's about all the information it gets. This leads to an "inlined" macro that has absolutely no docs on it, and no `[src]` link to show you where it was declared.
The way i got around it was to keep proc-macro re-export disabled, since we do get enough information across crates to properly link to the source page:
Until we can get a proc-macro's docs (and ideally also its source span) across crates, i believe this is the best way forward.
RFC 2008 non-exhaustive enums/structs: Rustdoc
Part of #44109. Not sure how those who maintain rustdoc primarily would prefer this addition look or where it should be placed, happy to make any changes required.
r? @QuietMisdreavus (not sure if this is the right person, just guessing)
