This implements RFC 1624, tracking issue #37339.
- `FnCtxt` (in typeck) gets a stack of `LoopCtxt`s, which store the
currently deduced type of that loop, the desired type, and a list of
break expressions currently seen. `loop` loops get a fresh type
variable as their initial type (this logic is stolen from that for
arrays). `while` loops get `()`.
- `break {expr}` looks up the broken loop, and unifies the type of
`expr` with the type of the loop.
- `break` with no expr unifies the loop's type with `()`.
- When building MIR, `loop` loops no longer construct a `()` value at
termination of the loop; rather, the `break` expression assigns the
result of the loop. `while` loops are unchanged.
- `break` respects contexts in which expressions may not end with braced
blocks. That is, `while break { break-value } { while-body }` is
illegal; this preserves backwards compatibility.
- The RFC did not make it clear, but I chose to make `break ()` inside
of a `while` loop illegal, just in case we wanted to do anything with
that design space in the future.
This is my first time dealing with this part of rustc so I'm sure
there's plenty of problems to pick on here ^_^
Most of the Rust community agrees that the vec! macro is clearer when
called using square brackets [] instead of regular brackets (). Most of
these ocurrences are from before macros allowed using different types of
brackets.
There is one left unchanged in a pretty-print test, as the pretty
printer still wants it to have regular brackets.
prefer `if let` to match with `None => { }` arm in some places
In #34268 (8531d581), we replaced matches of None to the unit value `()`
with `if let`s in places where it was deemed that this made the code
unambiguously clearer and more idiomatic. In #34638 (d37edef9), we did
the same for matches of None to the empty block `{}`.
A casual observer, upon seeing these commits fly by, might suppose that
the matter was then settled, that no further pull requests on this
utterly trivial point of style could or would be made. Unless ...
It turns out that sometimes people write the empty block with a space in
between the braces. Who knew?
Fix some pretty printing tests
Many pretty-printing tests are un-ignored.
Some issues in classification of comments (trailing/isolated) and blank line counting are fixed.
Some comments are printed more carefully.
Some minor refactoring in pprust.rs
`no-pretty-expanded` annotations are removed because this is the default now.
`pretty-expanded` annotations are removed from compile-fail tests, they are not tested with pretty-printer.
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23623 in favor of more specific https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37201 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/37199
r? @nrc
`#[may_dangle]` attribute
`#[may_dangle]` attribute
Second step of #34761. Last big hurdle before we can work in earnest towards Allocator integration (#32838)
Note: I am not clear if this is *also* a syntax-breaking change that needs to be part of a breaking-batch.
In #34268 (8531d581), we replaced matches of None to the unit value `()`
with `if let`s in places where it was deemed that this made the code
unambiguously clearer and more idiomatic. In #34638 (d37edef9), we did
the same for matches of None to the empty block `{}`.
A casual observer, upon seeing these commits fly by, might suppose that
the matter was then settled, that no further pull requests on this
utterly trivial point of style could or would be made. Unless ...
It turns out that sometimes people write the empty block with a space in
between the braces. Who knew?
macros: clean up scopes of expanded `#[macro_use]` imports
This PR changes the scope of macro-expanded `#[macro_use]` imports to match that of unexpanded `#[macro_use]` imports. For example, this would be allowed:
```rust
example!();
macro_rules! m { () => { #[macro_use(example)] extern crate example_crate; } }
m!();
```
This PR also enforces the full shadowing restrictions from RFC 1560 on `#[macro_use]` imports (currently, we only enforce the weakened restrictions from #36767).
This is a [breaking-change], but I believe it is highly unlikely to cause breakage in practice.
r? @nrc
Logically, it's a vector of pairs, so might as well represent it that
way.
The commit also changes `scan_stack` so that it is initialized with the
default size, instead of the excessive `55 * linewidth` size, which it
usually doesn't get even close to reaching.
This applies the HIR changes from the previous commits to the AST, and
is thus a syntax-[breaking-change]
Renames `PatKind::Vec` to `PatKind::Slice`, since these are called slice
patterns, not vec patterns. Renames `TyKind::Vec`, which represents the
type `[T]`, to `TyKind::Slice`. Renames `TyKind::FixedLengthVec` to
`TyKind::Array`.
Refactor `PathListItem`s
This refactors away variant `Mod` of `ast::PathListItemKind` and refactors the remaining variant `Ident` to a struct `ast::PathListItem_`.
This is a spiritual succesor to #34268/8531d581, in which we replaced a
number of matches of None to the unit value with `if let` conditionals
where it was judged that this made for clearer/simpler code (as would be
recommended by Manishearth/rust-clippy's `single_match` lint). The same
rationale applies to matches of None to the empty block.
To allow these braced macro invocation, this PR removes the optional expression from `ast::Block` and instead uses a `StmtKind::Expr` at the end of the statement list.
Currently, braced macro invocations in blocks can expand into statements (and items) except when they are last in a block, in which case they can only expand into expressions.
For example,
```rust
macro_rules! make_stmt {
() => { let x = 0; }
}
fn f() {
make_stmt! {} //< This is OK...
let x = 0; //< ... unless this line is commented out.
}
```
Fixes#34418.
syntax-[breaking-change] cc #31645
(Only breaking because ast::TokenTree is now tokenstream::TokenTree.)
This pull request refactors TokenTrees into their own file as src/libsyntax/tokenstream.rs, moving them out of src/libsyntax/ast.rs, in order to prepare for an accompanying TokenStream implementation (per RFC 1566).
This PR refactors the 'errors' part of libsyntax into its own crate (librustc_errors). This is the first part of a few refactorings to simplify error reporting and potentially support more output formats (like a standardized JSON output and possibly an --explain mode that can work with the user's code), though this PR stands on its own and doesn't assume further changes.
As part of separating out the errors crate, I have also refactored the code position portion of codemap into its own crate (libsyntax_pos). While it's helpful to have the common code positions in a separate crate for the new errors crate, this may also enable further simplifications in the future.
