"Missing" patterns are possible in bare fn types (`fn f(u32)`) and
similar places. Currently these are represented in the AST with
`ast::PatKind::Ident` with no `by_ref`, no `mut`, an empty ident, and no
sub-pattern. This flows through to `{hir,thir}::PatKind::Binding` for
HIR and THIR.
This is a bit nasty. It's very non-obvious, and easy to forget to check
for the exceptional empty identifier case.
This commit adds a new variant, `PatKind::Missing`, to do it properly.
The process I followed:
- Add a `Missing` variant to `{ast,hir,thir}::PatKind`.
- Chang `parse_param_general` to produce `ast::PatKind::Missing`
instead of `ast::PatKind::Missing`.
- Look through `kw::Empty` occurrences to find functions where an
existing empty ident check needs replacing with a `PatKind::Missing`
check: `print_param`, `check_trait_item`, `is_named_param`.
- Add a `PatKind::Missing => unreachable!(),` arm to every exhaustive
match identified by the compiler.
- Find which arms are actually reachable by running the test suite,
changing them to something appropriate, usually by looking at what
would happen to a `PatKind::Ident`/`PatKind::Binding` with no ref, no
`mut`, an empty ident, and no subpattern.
Quite a few of the `unreachable!()` arms were never reached. This makes
sense because `PatKind::Missing` can't happen in every pattern, only
in places like bare fn tys and trait fn decls.
I also tried an alternative approach: modifying `ast::Param::pat` to
hold an `Option<P<Pat>>` instead of a `P<Pat>`, but that quickly turned
into a very large and painful change. Adding `PatKind::Missing` is much
easier.
StructField -> FieldDef ("field definition")
Field -> ExprField ("expression field", not "field expression")
FieldPat -> PatField ("pattern field", not "field pattern")
Also rename visiting and other methods working on them.
This extends PR #73293 to handle patterns (Pat). Unlike expressions,
patterns do not support custom attributes, so we only need to capture
tokens during macro_rules! argument parsing.
