Fully implement or-pattern parsing
Builds upon the initial parsing in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/61708 to fully implement or-pattern (`p | q`) parsing as specified in [the grammar section of RFC 2535](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2535-or-patterns.md#grammar).
Noteworthy:
- We allow or-patterns in `[p | q, ...]`.
- We allow or-patterns in `let` statements and `for` expressions including with leading `|`.
- We improve recovery for `p || q` (+ tests for that in `multiple-pattern-typo.rs`).
- We improve recovery for `| p | q` in inner patterns (tests in `or-patterns-syntactic-fail.rs`).
- We rigorously test or-pattern parsing (in `or-patterns-syntactic-{pass,fail}.rs`).
- We harden the feature gating tests.
- We do **_not_** change `ast.rs`. That is, `ExprKind::Let.0` and `Arm.pats` still accept `Vec<P<Pat>>`.
I was starting work on that but it would be cleaner to do this in a separate PR so this one has a narrower scope.
cc @dlrobertson
cc the tracking issue https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/54883.
r? @estebank
Also mark derive helpers as known as a part of the derive container's expansion instead of expansion of the derives themselves which may happen too late.
This replaces the ad-hoc tuples used in the different feature gate files
and unifies their content into a common type, leading to more readable
matches and other good stuff that comes from having named fields. It
also contains the description of each feature as extracted from the doc
comment.
Audit uses of `apply_mark` in built-in macros + Remove default macro transparencies
Every use of `apply_mark` in a built-in or procedural macro is supposed to look like this
```rust
location.with_ctxt(SyntaxContext::root().apply_mark(ecx.current_expansion.id))
```
where `SyntaxContext::root()` means that the built-in/procedural macro is defined directly, rather than expanded from some other macro.
However, few people understood what `apply_mark` does, so we had a lot of copy-pasted uses of it looking e.g. like
```rust
span = span.apply_mark(ecx.current_expansion.id);
```
, which doesn't really make sense for procedural macros, but at the same time is not too harmful, if the macros use the traditional `macro_rules` hygiene.
So, to fight this, we stop using `apply_mark` directly in built-in macro implementations, and follow the example of regular proc macros instead and use analogues of `Span::def_site()` and `Span::call_site()`, which are much more intuitive and less error-prone.
- `ecx.with_def_site_ctxt(span)` takes the `span`'s location and combines it with a def-site context.
- `ecx.with_call_site_ctxt(span)` takes the `span`'s location and combines it with a call-site context.
Even if called multiple times (which sometimes happens due to some historical messiness of the built-in macro code) these functions will produce the same result, unlike `apply_mark` which will grow the mark chain further in this case.
---
After `apply_mark`s in built-in macros are eliminated, the remaining `apply_mark`s are very few in number, so we can start passing the previously implicit `Transparency` argument to them explicitly, thus eliminating the need in `default_transparency` fields in hygiene structures and `#[rustc_macro_transparency]` annotations on built-in macros.
So, the task of making built-in macros opaque can now be formulated as "eliminate `with_legacy_ctxt` in favor of `with_def_site_ctxt`" rather than "replace `#[rustc_macro_transparency = "semitransparent"]` with `#[rustc_macro_transparency = "opaque"]`".
r? @matthewjasper
All transparancies are passed explicitly now.
Also remove `#[rustc_macro_transparency]` annotations from built-in macros, they are no longer used.
`#[rustc_macro_transparency]` only makes sense for declarative macros now.
Replace them with equivalents of `Span::{def_site,call_site}` from proc macro API.
The new API is much less error prone and doesn't rely on macros having default transparency.
