Merge `TraitItem` & `ImplItem into `AssocItem`
In this PR we:
- Merge `{Trait,Impl}Item{Kind?}` into `AssocItem{Kind?}` as discussed in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65041#issuecomment-538105286.
- This is done by using the cover grammar of both forms.
- In particular, it requires that we syntactically allow (under `#[cfg(FALSE)]`):
- `default`ness on `trait` items,
- `impl` items without a body / definition (`const`, `type`, and `fn`),
- and associated `type`s in `impl`s with bounds, e.g., `type Foo: Ord;`.
- The syntactic restrictions are replaced by semantic ones in `ast_validation`.
- Move syntactic restrictions around C-variadic parameters from the parser into `ast_validation`:
- `fn`s in all contexts now syntactically allow `...`,
- `...` can occur anywhere in the list syntactically (`fn foo(..., x: usize) {}`),
- and `...` can be the sole parameter (`fn foo(...) {}`.
r? @petrochenkov
Refactor `parse_enum_item` to use `parse_delim_comma_seq`
Followup after https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/66641
Some errors got more verbose but I think they make sense with the help message.
Rework raw ident suggestions
Use heuristics to determine whethersuggesting raw identifiers is
appropriate.
Account for raw identifiers when printing a path in a `use` suggestion.
Fix#66126.
*Syntactically* permit visibilities on trait items & enum variants
Fixes#65041
Suppose we have `$vis trait_item` or `$vis enum_variant` and `$vis` is a `:vis` macro fragment. Before this PR, this would fail to parse. This is now instead allowed as per language team consensus in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65041#issuecomment-538105286. (See added tests for elaboration.)
Moreover, we now also permit visibility modifiers on trait items & enum variants *syntactically* but reject them with semantic checks (in `ast_validation`):
```rust
#[cfg(FALSE)]
trait Foo { pub fn bar(); } // OK
#[cfg(FALSE)]
enum E { pub U } // OK
```
Add more tests for fixed ICEs
Closes#36122 (fixed in 1.20.0)
Closes#58094 (fixed in #66054)
Also, fix mistaken test case, from #30904 to #30906 (cc @eddyb)
r? @Centril
A scheme for more macro-matcher friendly pre-expansion gating
Pre-expansion gating will now avoid gating macro matchers that did not result in `Success(...)`. That is, the following is now OK despite `box 42` being a valid `expr` and that form being pre-expansion gated:
```rust
macro_rules! m {
($e:expr) => { 0 }; // This fails on the input below due to `, foo`.
(box $e:expr, foo) => { 1 }; // Successful matcher, we should get `2`.
}
fn main() {
assert_eq!(1, m!(box 42, foo));
}
```
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/65846.
r? @petrochenkov
cc @Mark-Simulacrum
syntax: Avoid span arithmetic for delimiter tokens
The +/-1 logic is from the time where the whole group had a single span and the delimiter spans had to be calculated from it.
Now the delimiters have their own spans which are constructed by lexer or proc macro API and can be used directly.
If those spans are not perfect, then it should be fixed by tweaking the corresponding lexer logic rather than by trying to add or substract `1` from the span boundaries.
Fixes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/62524
r? @estebank
Reduce amount of errors given unclosed delimiter
When in a file with a non-terminated item, catch the error and consume
the block instead of trying to recover it on a more granular way in order to
reduce the amount of unrelated errors that would be fixed after adding
the missing closing brace. Also point out the possible location of the
missing closing brace.
Fix#63690.
Partially revert the early feature-gatings added in #65742.
The intent here is to address #65860 ASAP (in time for beta, ideally), while leaving as much of #65742 around as possible, to make it easier to re-enable later.
Therefore, I've only kept the parts of the revert that re-add the old (i.e. non-early) feature-gating checks that were removed in #65742, and the test reverts.
I've disabled the new early feature-gating checks from #65742 entirely for now, but it would be easy to put them behind a `-Z` flag, or turn them into warnings, which would allow us to keep tests for both the early and late versions of the checks - assuming that's desirable.
cc @nikomatsakis @Mark-Simulacrum @Centril
