Now that `..=` inclusive ranges are stabilized, people probably
shouldn't be using `...` even in patterns, even if it's still legal
there (see #51043). To avoid drawing attention to `...` being a real
thing, let's reword this message to just say "unexpected token" rather
"cannot be used in expressions".
parser: Split `+=` into `+` and `=` where `+` is explicitly requested (such as generics)
Added functions in tokens to check whether a token leads with `+`. Used them when parsing to allow for token splitting of `+=` into `+` and `=`.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/47856
Removed 'proc' from the reserved keywords list
Remove 'proc' from the reserved keywords list.
'proc' is a very useful identifier name for a lot of things. It's especially useful when dealing with processes, operating system internals, and kernel development.
Expand macros in `extern {}` blocks
This permits macro and proc-macro and attribute invocations (the latter only with the `proc_macro` feature of course) in `extern {}` blocks, gated behind a new `macros_in_extern` feature.
A tracking issue is now open at #49476closes#48747
(Meanwhile, a couple of parse-fail tests are moved to UI tests so that
the reader can see the new output, and an existing UI test is given a
more evocative name.)
Warn about ignored generic bounds in `for`
This adds a new lint to fix#42181. For consistency and to avoid code duplication, I also moved the existing "bounds in type aliases are ignored" here.
Questions to the reviewer:
* Is it okay to just remove a diagnostic error code like this? Should I instead keep the warning about type aliases where it is? The old code provided a detailed explanation of what's going on when asked, that information is now lost. On the other hand, `span_warn!` seems deprecated (after this patch, it has exactly one user left!).
* Did I miss any syntactic construct that can appear as `for` in the surface syntax? I covered function types (`for<'a> fn(...)`), generic traits (`for <'a> Fn(...)`, can appear both as bounds as as trait objects) and bounds (`for<'a> F: ...`).
* For the sake of backwards compatibility, this adds a warning, not an error. @nikomatsakis suggested an error in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/42181#issuecomment-306924389, but I feel that can only happen in a new epoch -- right?
Cc @eddyb
Also move the check for not having type parameters into ast_validation.
I was not sure what to do with compile-fail/issue-23046.rs: The issue looks like
maybe the bounds actually played a role in triggering the ICE, but that seems
unlikely given that the compiler seems to entirely ignore them. However, I
couldn't find a testcase without the bounds, so I figured the best I could do is
to just remove the bounds and make sure at least that keeps working.
Currently ', " and \ are escaped as \', \" and \\ respectively. This
leads to confusing messages such as `error: unknown start of token: \\`
when encountering a single backslash.
Fix by emitting printable ASCII characters directly. This will still
escape \r, \n, \t and Unicode characters.
Fixes#47902
Properly parse impls for the never type `!`
Recover from missing `for` in `impl Trait for Type`
Prohibit inherent default impls and default impls of auto traits
Change wording in more diagnostics to use "auto traits"
Some minor code cleanups in the parser
`struct` pattern parsing and diagnostic tweaks
- Recover from struct parse error on match and point out missing match
body.
- Point at struct when finding non-identifier while parsing its fields.
- Add label to "expected identifier, found {}" error.
Fix#15980.
- Recover from struct parse error on match and point out missing match
body.
- Point at struct when finding non-identifier while parsing its fields.
- Add label to "expected identifier, found {}" error.
It looks like many of these tests are already disabled on emscripten,
which also doesn't seem to support environment variables and subprocess
spawning. Just add a similar tag for CloudABI. While there, sort some of
the lists of operating systems alphabetically.
When a parse error occurs on a block, the parser will recover and create
a block with the statements collected until that point. Now a flag
stating that a recovery has been performed in this block is propagated
so that the type checker knows that the type of the block (which will be
identified as `()`) shouldn't be checked against the expectation to
reduce the amount of irrelevant diagnostic errors shown to the user.
Modify message for keyword as identifier name
This is a temporary solution to #46311.
The message is generic enough to cover both cases and is probably a fine enough solution to the specific problem described in the task. However, the underlying reason for this to be wrong is that `next_token_inner` returns `Lifetime` even if the token is a label. That's not simple, as the syntax for both can be quite similar and it may need to take a look to the next token to make a decision. I'm not sure I have enough knowledge about the project to be able to solve that (yet!), so I thought I'll fix the immediate problem first.
Add error for `...` in expressions
Follow-up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/44709
Tracking issue: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/28237
* Using `...` in expressions was a warning, now it's an error
* The error message suggests using `..` or `..=` instead, and explains the difference
* Updated remaining occurrences of `...` to `..=`
r? petrochenkov
