Fixing #21475. Right now this code can not be parsed:
```rust
use m::{START, END};
fn main() {
match 42u32 {
m::START...m::END => {}, // error: expected one of `::`, `=>`, or `|`, found `...`
_ => {},
}
}
mod m {
pub const START: u32 = 4;
pub const END: u32 = 14;
}
```
I fixed the parser and added test for this case, but now there are still problems with mixing literals and paths in interval:
```rust
match 42u32 {
0u32...m::END => {}, // mismatched types in range [E0031]
m::START...59u32 => {}, // mismatched types in range [E0031]
_ => {},
}
}
```
I'll try fix this problem and need review.
This is one more step towards completing #13231
This series of commits add support for default trait implementations. The changes in this PR don't break existing code and they are expected to preserve the existing behavior in the compiler as far as built-in bounds checks go.
The PR adds negative implementations of `Send`/`Sync` for some types and it removes the special cases for `Send`/`Sync` during the trait obligations checks. That is, it now fully relies on the traits check rather than lang items.
Once this patch lands and a new snapshot is created, it'll be possible to add default impls for `Send` and `Sync` and remove entirely the use of `BuiltinBound::{BoundSend,BoundSync}` for positive implementations as well.
This PR also removes the restriction on negative implementations. That is, it is now possible to add negative implementations for traits other than `Send`/`Sync`
This is not a complete implementation of the RFC:
- only existing methods got updated, no new ones added
- doc comments are not extensive enough yet
- optimizations got lost and need to be reimplemented
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/528
Technically a
[breaking-change]
they are used without a feature-gate. This is both kinder to existing
code and should make it easier to land this PR, since we don't
have to catch EVERY SINGLE SUFFIX.
It's not clear what this means, because a macro in item position can expand to zero or more items. For now we disallow it, which is technically a
[breaking-change]
but is landing without an RFC. The `pub` keyword previously had no effect, which seems quite unintended.
Fixes#18317.
Fixes#14660.
Some function signatures have changed, so this is a [breaking-change].
In particular, radixes and numerical values of digits are represented by `u32` now.
Part of #22240
It is only allowed in paths now, where it will either work inside a `trait`
or `impl` item, or not resolve outside of it.
[breaking-change]
Closes#22137
It's not clear what this means, because a macro in item position can expand to
zero or more items. For now we disallow it, which is technically a
[breaking-change]
but is landing without an RFC. The `pub` keyword previously had no effect,
which seems quite unintended.
Fixes#18317.
Fixes#14660.
It is only allowed in paths now, where it will either work inside a `trait`
or `impl` item, or not resolve outside of it.
[breaking-change]
Closes#22137
The word is repeated twice in the message like:
error: obsolete syntax: `:`, `&mut:`, or `&:` syntax
This removes the word syntax that appears in messages after the second colon (:).
The word is repeated twice in the message like
error: obsolete syntax: `:`, `&mut:`, or `&:` syntax
This removes the word syntax that appears in messages after the second colon (:).
This can be considered partial work on #8256.
The main observable change: macro expansion sometimes results in spans where `lo > hi`; so for now, when we have such a span, do not attempt to return a snippet result.
(Longer term, we might think about whether we could still present a snippet for the cases where this arises, e.g. perhaps by showing the whole macro as the snippet, assuming that is the sole cause of such spans; or by somehow looking up the closest AST node that holds both `lo` and `hi`, and showing that.)
As a drive-by, revised the API to return a `Result` rather than an `Option`, with better information-packed error value that should help us (and maybe also our users) identify the causes of such problems in the future. Ideally the call-sites that really want an actual snippet would be updated to catch the newly added `Err` case and print something meaningful about it, but that is not part of this PR.
Implement step 1 of rust-lang/rfcs#702
Allows the expression `..` (without either endpoint) in general, can be
used in slicing syntax `&expr[..]` where we previously wrote `&expr[]`.
The old syntax &expr[] is not yet removed or warned for.
This can be considered partial work on #8256.
The main observable change: macro expansion sometimes results in spans
where `lo > hi`; so for now, when we have such a span, do not attempt
to return a snippet result.
(Longer term, we might think about whether we could still present a
snippet for the cases where this arises, e.g. perhaps by showing the
whole macro as the snippet, assuming that is the sole cause of such
spans; or by somehow looking up the closest AST node that holds both
`lo` and `hi`, and showing that.)
As a drive-by, revised the API to return a `Result` rather than an
`Option`, with better information-packed error value that should help
us (and maybe also our users) identify the causes of such problems in
the future. Ideally the call-sites that really want an actual snippet
would be updated to catch the newly added `Err` case and print
something meaningful about it, but that is not part of this PR.
