`rustc_symbol` is the source of truth for keywords.
rustdoc has its own implicit definition of keywords, via the
`is_doc_keyword`. It (presumably) intends to include all keywords, but
it omits `yeet`.
rustfmt has its own explicit list of Rust keywords. It also (presumably)
intends to include all keywords, but it omits `await`, `builtin`, `gen`,
`macro_rules`, `raw`, `reuse`, `safe`, and `yeet`. Also, it does linear
searches through this list, which is inefficient.
This commit fixes all of the above problems by introducing a new
predicate `is_any_keyword` in rustc and using it in rustdoc and rustfmt.
It documents that it's not the right predicate in most cases.
`rustc_span::symbol` defines some things that are re-exported from
`rustc_span`, such as `Symbol` and `sym`. But it doesn't re-export some
closely related things such as `Ident` and `kw`. So you can do `use
rustc_span::{Symbol, sym}` but you have to do `use
rustc_span::symbol::{Ident, kw}`, which is inconsistent for no good
reason.
This commit re-exports `Ident`, `kw`, and `MacroRulesNormalizedIdent`,
and changes many `rustc_span::symbol::` qualifiers in `compiler/` to
`rustc_span::`. This is a 200+ net line of code reduction, mostly
because many files with two `use rustc_span` items can be reduced to
one.
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.
Fix `break_last_token`.
It currently doesn't handle the three-char tokens `>>=` and `<<=` correctly. These can be broken twice, resulting in three individual tokens. This is a latent bug that currently doesn't cause any problems, but does cause problems for #124141, because that PR increases the usage of lazy token streams.
r? `@petrochenkov`
It currently doesn't handle the three-char tokens `>>=` and `<<=`
correctly. These can be broken twice, resulting in three individual
tokens. This is a latent bug that currently doesn't cause any problems,
but does cause problems for #124141, because that PR increases the usage
of lazy token streams.
Merge `PatParam`/`PatWithOr`, and `Expr`/`Expr2021`, for a few reasons.
- It's conceptually nice, because the two pattern kinds and the two
expression kinds are very similar.
- With expressions in particular, there are several places where both
expression kinds get the same treatment.
- It removes one unreachable match arm.
- Most importantly, for #124141 I will need to introduce a new type
`MetaVarKind` that is very similar to `NonterminalKind`, but records a
couple of extra fields for expression metavars. It's nicer to have a
single `MetaVarKind::Expr` expression variant to hold those extra
fields instead of duplicating them across two variants
`MetaVarKind::{Expr,Expr2021}`. And then it makes sense for patterns
to be treated the same way, and for `NonterminalKind` to also be
treated the same way.
I also clarified the comments, because I have long found them a little
hard to understand.
Make edition dependent `:expr` macro fragment act like the edition-dependent `:pat` fragment does
Parse the `:expr` fragment as `:expr_2021` in editions <=2021, and as `:expr` in edition 2024. This is similar to how we parse `:pat` as `:pat_param` in edition <=2018 and `:pat_with_or` in >=2021, and means we can get rid of a span dependency from `nonterminal_may_begin_with`.
Specifically, this fixes a theoretical regression since the `expr_2021` macro fragment previously would allow `const {}` if the *caller* is edition 2024. This is inconsistent with the way that the `pat` macro fragment was upgraded, and also leads to surprising behavior when a macro *caller* crate upgrades to edtion 2024, since they may have parsing changes that they never asked for (with no way of opting out of it).
This PR also allows using `expr_2021` in all editions. Why was this was disallowed in the first place? It's purely additive, and also it's still feature gated?
r? ```@fmease``` ```@eholk``` cc ```@vincenzopalazzo```
cc #123865
Tracking:
- https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/123742
We currently use `can_begin_literal_maybe_minus` in a couple of places
where only string literals are allowed. This commit introduces a
more specific function, which makes things clearer. It doesn't change
behaviour because the two functions affected (`is_unsafe_foreign_mod`
and `check_keyword_case`) are always followed by a call to `parse_abi`,
which checks again for a string literal.
It's clearer this way, because the `Interpolated` cases in
`can_begin_const_arg` and `is_pat_range_end_start` are more permissive
than the `Interpolated` cases in `can_begin_literal_maybe_minus`.
Update `expr` matcher for Edition 2024 and add `expr_2021` nonterminal
This commit adds a new nonterminal `expr_2021` in macro patterns, and `expr_fragment_specifier_2024` feature flag.
This change also updates `expr` so that on Edition 2024 it will also match `const { ... }` blocks, while `expr_2021` preserves the current behavior of `expr`, matching expressions without `const` blocks.
Joint work with `@vincenzopalazzo.`
Issue #123742
The extra span is now recorded in the new `TokenKind::NtIdent` and
`TokenKind::NtLifetime`. These both consist of a single token, and so
there's no operator precedence problems with inserting them directly
into the token stream.
The other way to do this would be to wrap the ident/lifetime in invisible
delimiters, but there's a lot of code that assumes an interpolated
ident/lifetime fits in a single token, and changing all that code to work with
invisible delimiters would have been a pain. (Maybe it could be done in a
follow-up.)
This change might not seem like much of a win, but it's a first step toward the
much bigger and long-desired removal of `Nonterminal` and
`TokenKind::Interpolated`. That change is big and complex enough that it's
worth doing this piece separately. (Indeed, this commit is based on part of a
late commit in #114647, a prior attempt at that big and complex change.)
This commit adds a new nonterminal `expr_2021` in macro patterns, and
`expr_fragment_specifier_2024` feature flag. For now, `expr` and
`expr_2021` are treated the same, but in future PRs we will update
`expr` to match to new grammar.
Co-authored-by: Vincezo Palazzo <vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com>
This span records the declaration of the metavariable in the LHS of the macro.
It's used in a couple of error messages. Unfortunately, it gets in the way of
the long-term goal of removing `TokenKind::Interpolated`. So this commit
removes it, which degrades a couple of (obscure) error messages but makes
things simpler and enables the next commit.
Cleanup: Rename `ModSep` to `PathSep`
`::` is usually referred to as the *path separator* (citation needed).
The existing name `ModSep` for *module separator* is a bit misleading since it in fact separates the segments of arbitrary path segments, not only ones resolving to modules. Let me just give a shout-out to associated items (`T::Assoc`, `<Ty as Trait>::function`) and enum variants (`Option::None`).
Motivation: Reduce friction for new contributors, prevent potential confusion.
cc `@petrochenkov`
r? nnethercote or compiler
This mostly works well, and eliminates a couple of delayed bugs.
One annoying thing is that we should really also add an
`ErrorGuaranteed` to `proc_macro::bridge::LitKind::Err`. But that's
difficult because `proc_macro` doesn't have access to `ErrorGuaranteed`,
so we have to fake it.
detects redundant imports that can be eliminated.
for #117772 :
In order to facilitate review and modification, split the checking code and
removing redundant imports code into two PR.
More detail when expecting expression but encountering bad macro argument
On nested macro invocations where the same macro fragment changes fragment type from one to the next, point at the chain of invocations and at the macro fragment definition place, explaining that the change has occurred.
Fix#71039.
```
error: expected expression, found pattern `1 + 1`
--> $DIR/trace_faulty_macros.rs:49:37
|
LL | (let $p:pat = $e:expr) => {test!(($p,$e))};
| ------- -- this is interpreted as expression, but it is expected to be pattern
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is expression
...
LL | (($p:pat, $e:pat)) => {let $p = $e;};
| ------ ^^ expected expression
| |
| this macro fragment matcher is pattern
...
LL | test!(let x = 1+1);
| ------------------
| | |
| | this is expected to be expression
| in this macro invocation
|
= note: when forwarding a matched fragment to another macro-by-example, matchers in the second macro will see an opaque AST of the fragment type, not the underlying tokens
= note: this error originates in the macro `test` (in Nightly builds, run with -Z macro-backtrace for more info)
```
Format all the let-chains in compiler crates
Since rust-lang/rustfmt#5910 has landed, soon we will have support for formatting let-chains (as soon as rustfmt syncs and beta gets bumped).
This PR applies the changes [from master rustfmt to rust-lang/rust eagerly](https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/122651-general/topic/out.20formatting.20of.20prs/near/374997516), so that the next beta bump does not have to deal with a 200+ file diff and can remain concerned with other things like `cfg(bootstrap)` -- #113637 was a pain to land, for example, because of let-else.
I will also add this commit to the ignore list after it has landed.
The commands that were run -- I'm not great at bash-foo, but this applies rustfmt to every compiler crate, and then reverts the two crates that should probably be formatted out-of-tree.
```
~/rustfmt $ ls -1d ~/rust/compiler/* | xargs -I@ cargo run --bin rustfmt -- `@/src/lib.rs` --config-path ~/rust --edition=2021 # format all of the compiler crates
~/rust $ git checkout HEAD -- compiler/rustc_codegen_{gcc,cranelift} # revert changes to cg-gcc and cg-clif
```
cc `@rust-lang/rustfmt`
r? `@WaffleLapkin` or `@Nilstrieb` who said they may be able to review this purely mechanical PR :>
cc `@Mark-Simulacrum` and `@petrochenkov,` who had some thoughts on the order of operations with big formatting changes in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95262#issue-1178993801. I think the situation has changed since then, given that let-chains support exists on master rustfmt now, and I'm fairly confident that this formatting PR should land even if *bootstrap* rustfmt doesn't yet format let-chains in order to lessen the burden of the next beta bump.
