Instead of trying to collect tokens at each depth, we 'flatten' the
stream as we go allong, pushing open/close delimiters to our buffer
just like regular tokens. One capturing is complete, we reconstruct a
nested `TokenTree::Delimited` structure, producing a normal
`TokenStream`.
The reconstructed `TokenStream` is not created immediately - instead, it is
produced on-demand by a closure (wrapped in a new `LazyTokenStream` type). This
closure stores a clone of the original `TokenCursor`, plus a record of the
number of calls to `next()/next_desugared()`. This is sufficient to reconstruct
the tokenstream seen by the callback without storing any additional state. If
the tokenstream is never used (e.g. when a captured `macro_rules!` argument is
never passed to a proc macro), we never actually create a `TokenStream`.
This implementation has a number of advantages over the previous one:
* It is significantly simpler, with no edge cases around capturing the
start/end of a delimited group.
* It can be easily extended to allow replacing tokens an an arbitrary
'depth' by just using `Vec::splice` at the proper position. This is
important for PR #76130, which requires us to track information about
attributes along with tokens.
* The lazy approach to `TokenStream` construction allows us to easily
parse an AST struct, and then decide after the fact whether we need a
`TokenStream`. This will be useful when we start collecting tokens for
`Attribute` - we can discard the `LazyTokenStream` if the parsed
attribute doesn't need tokens (e.g. is a builtin attribute).
The performance impact seems to be neglibile (see
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/77250#issuecomment-703960604). There is a
small slowdown on a few benchmarks, but it only rises above 1% for incremental
builds, where it represents a larger fraction of the much smaller instruction
count. There a ~1% speedup on a few other incremental benchmarks - my guess is
that the speedups and slowdowns will usually cancel out in practice.
This approach lives exclusively in the parser, so struct expr bodies
that are syntactically correct on their own but are otherwise incorrect
will still emit confusing errors, like in the following case:
```rust
fn foo() -> Foo {
bar: Vec::new()
}
```
```
error[E0425]: cannot find value `bar` in this scope
--> src/file.rs:5:5
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^ expecting a type here because of type ascription
error[E0214]: parenthesized type parameters may only be used with a `Fn` trait
--> src/file.rs:5:15
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^^^ only `Fn` traits may use parentheses
error[E0107]: wrong number of type arguments: expected 1, found 0
--> src/file.rs:5:10
|
5 | bar: Vec::new()
| ^^^^^^^^^^ expected 1 type argument
```
If that field had a trailing comma, that would be a parse error and it
would trigger the new, more targetted, error:
```
error: struct literal body without path
--> file.rs:4:17
|
4 | fn foo() -> Foo {
| _________________^
5 | | bar: Vec::new(),
6 | | }
| |_^
|
help: you might have forgotten to add the struct literal inside the block
|
4 | fn foo() -> Foo { Path {
5 | bar: Vec::new(),
6 | } }
|
```
Partially address last part of #34255.
Improve recovery on malformed format call
The token following a format expression should be a comma. However, when it is replaced with a similar token (such as a dot), then the corresponding error is emitted, but the token is treated as a comma, and the parsing step continues.
r? @petrochenkov
