1. Extract the tests for whether or not we have workable localStorage out into
a helper method, so it can be more easily reused
2. Use it in getCurrentValue() too, for the same reasons, as suggested in code
review
If the user's cookie/persistent storage setting forbid access to localStorage,
catch the exception and abort the access.
Currently, attempting to use the expand/contract links at the top of the page
for structs/consts/etc. fails due to an unhandled error while accessing
localStorage, if such access is forbidden, as the exception from the failed
access propagates all the way out, interrupting the expand/contract. Instead, I
would like to degrade gracefully; the access won't happen (the collapse/expand
state won't get persisted) but the actual expanding/contracting of the item
will go on to succeed.
Fixes#55079
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.
A type's fully qualified name will now wrap once it gets to the
`[-][src]` link aligned against the right edge of the content area.
Previously the two would overlap and the name would only wrap when
hitting the edge of the content area. The `[-][src]` link will main at
the top of the header.
Make left column of rustdoc search results narrower
To make more room for the description of the item
The description often has useful text that helps disambiguate between search results, but very little of it is shown.
As a side effect, this breaks the alignment between the search results and the "In Return Types" tab, which tends to line up above the description-- up until I started investigating this, I thought "In Names"/"In Parameters"/"In Return Types" were column headers and I just never saw search results that had info for the "In Parameters" middle column! Now, with the two columns of search results each taking up about a half, they look more like tabs than column headers.
Types that are long still wrap and look good-- I made some artificially long types in the following screenshots.
Before screenshot:
<img width="1258" alt="screen shot 2018-08-03 at 8 32 35 pm" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/193874/43670805-56e3b3b4-975e-11e8-9296-600837d03de2.png">
After screenshot:
<img width="1239" alt="screen shot 2018-08-03 at 8 31 17 pm" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/193874/43670810-6591f9ac-975e-11e8-9e12-4ea9ab1e5806.png">
By adding empty `after` content that clears and is `display: block`.
Technique found here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/7817313/51683
Now any part of a documentation search result that is highlighted when
you hover over it should also be clickable.
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)
