Prefer unwrap_or_else to unwrap_or in case of function calls/allocations
The contents of `unwrap_or` are evaluated eagerly, so it's not a good pick in case of function calls and allocations. This PR also changes a few `unwrap_or`s with `unwrap_or_default`.
An added bonus is that in some cases this change also reveals if the object it's called on is an `Option` or a `Result` (based on whether the closure takes an argument).
Add missing lifetime fragment specifier to error message.
A very minor issue, `lifetime` was missing from the error list.
I left `literal` in the list, even though it is unstable. It looks like it may stabilize soon anyways.
A very minor issue, `lifetime` was missing from the error list.
I left `literal` in the list, even though it is unstable. It looks like it may stabilize soon anyways.
Fix#54707 - parse_trait_item_ now handles interpolated blocks as function body decls
Fix#54707 - parse_trait_item_ now handles interpolated blocks as function body decls
Previously parsing trait items only handled opening brace token and semicolon, I added a branch to the match statement that will also handle interpolated blocks.
make `Parser::parse_foreign_item()` return a foreign item or error
Fixes `Parser::parse_foreign_item()` to follow the convention of `parse_trait_item()` and `parse_impl_item()` in that it *must* parse an item or return an error, and then the caller is responsible for detecting the closing delimiter.
This prevents it from looping endlessly on an unexpected token in `ext/expand.rs` where it was also leaking memory by continually pushing to `Parser::expected_tokens` via `Parser::check_keyword()`.
closes#54441
r? @petrochenkov
cc @dtolnay
resolve: Some refactorings in preparation for uniform paths 2.0
The main result is that in-scope resolution performed during macro expansion / import resolution is now consolidated in a single function (`fn early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope`), which can now be used for resolving first import segments as well when uniform paths are enabled.
r? @ghost
Merge `proc_macro_` expansion feature gates as `proc_macro_hygiene`
Merges `proc_macro_mod`, `proc_macro_expr`, `proc_macro_non_items`, and `proc_macro_gen` into a single feature: `proc_macro_hygiene`. These features are not all blocked on implementing macro hygiene *per se*, but rather on interactions with hygiene that have not been entirely resolved.
The restrictions were introduced in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/54277 and no longer necessary now because legacy plugins are now expanded in usual left-to-right order
abolish ICE when pretty-printing async block
@jnetterf reported an ICE when the unused-parentheses lint triggered around an async block (#54752). In order to compose an autofixable suggestion, the lint invokes the pretty-printer on the unnecessarily-parenthesized expression. (One wonders why the lint doesn't just use `SourceMap::span_to_snippet` instead, to preserve the formatting of the original source?—but to answer that, you'd have to ask the author of 5c9f806d.)
But then the pretty-printer panics when trying to call `<pprust::State as PrintState>::end` when `State.boxes` is empty. Empirically, the problem would seem to be solved if we start some "boxes" beforehand in the `ast::ExprKind::Async` arm of the big match in `print_expr_outer_attr_style`, exactly like we do in the immediately-preceding match arm for `ast::ExprKind::Block`—it would seem pretty ("pretty") reasonable for the pretty-printing of async blocks to work a lot like the pretty-printing of ordinary non-async blocks, right??
Of course, it would be shamefully cargo-culty to commit code on the basis of this kind of mere reasoning-by-analogy (in contrast to understanding the design of the pretty-printer in such detail that the correctness of the patch is comprehended with all the lucid certainty of mathematical proof, rather than being merely surmised by intuition). But maybe we care more about fixing the bug with high probability today, than with certainty in some indefinite hypothetical future? Maybe the effort is worth [a fifth of a shirt](https://hacktoberfest.digitalocean.com/stats/zackmdavis)??
Humbly resolves#54752.
r? @cramertj
Joshua Netterfield reported an ICE when the unused-parentheses lint
triggered around an async block (#54752). In order to compose an
autofixable suggestion, the lint invokes the pretty-printer on the
unnecessarily-parenthesized expression. (One wonders why the lint
doesn't just use `SourceMap::span_to_snippet` instead, to preserve the
formatting of the original source?—but for that, you'd have to ask the
author of 5c9f806d.)
But then the pretty-printer panics when trying to call `<pprust::State
as PrintState>::end` when `State.boxes` is empty. Empirically, the
problem would seem to be solved if we start some "boxes" beforehand in
the `ast::ExprKind::Async` arm of the big match in
`print_expr_outer_attr_style`, exactly like we do in the
immediately-preceding match arm for `ast::ExprKind::Block`—it would
seem pretty ("pretty") reasonable for the pretty-printing of async
blocks to work a lot like the pretty-printing of ordinary non-async
blocks, right??
Of course, it would be shamefully cargo-culty to commit code on the
basis of this kind of mere reasoning-by-analogy (in contrast to
understanding the design of the pretty-printer in such detail that the
correctness of the patch is comprehended with all the lucid certainty
of mathematical proof, rather than being merely surmised by
intuition). But maybe we care more about fixing the bug with high
probability today, than with certainty in some indefinite hypothetical
future? Maybe the effort is worth a fifth of a shirt??
Humbly resolves#54752.
Track whether module declarations are inline (fixes#12590)
To track whether module declarations are inline I added a field `inline: bool` to `ast::Mod`. The main use case is for pretty to know whether it should render the items associated with the module, but perhaps there are use cases for this information to not be forgotten in the AST.
Remove OneVector, increase related SmallVec capacities
Removes the `OneVector` type alias (equivalent to `SmallVec<[T; 1]>`); it is used in scenarios where the capacity of 1 is often exceeded, which might be nullifying the performance wins (due to spilling to the heap) expected when using `SmallVec` instead of `Vec`.
The numbers I used in this PR are very rough estimates - it would probably be a good idea to adjust some/all of them, which is what this proposal is all about.
It might be a good idea to additionally create some local type aliases for the `SmallVec`s in the `Folder` trait, as they are repeated in quite a few spots; I'd be happy to apply this sort of adjustments.
Stabilize pattern_parentheses feature
Addresses #51087 .
Stabilizes the previously unstable feature `pattern_parentheses` which enables the use of `()` in match patterns.
`impl trait` in bindings (feature: impl-trait-existential-types)
This PR enables `impl Trait` syntax (opaque types) to be used in bindings, e.g.
* `let foo: impl Clone = 1;`
* `static foo: impl Clone = 2;`
* `const foo: impl Clone = 3;`
This is part of [RFC 2071](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/2071-impl-trait-existential-types.md) ([tracking issue](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/34511)), but exists behind the separate feature gate `impl_trait_in_bindings`.
CC @cramertj @oli-obk @eddyb @Centril @varkor
Support an explicit annotation for marker traits
From the tracking issue for rust-lang/rfcs#1268:
> It seems obvious that we should make a `#[marker]` annotation. ~ https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/29864#issuecomment-368959441
This PR allows you to put `#[marker]` on a trait, at which point:
- [x] The trait must not have any items ~~All of the trait's items must have defaults~~
- [x] Any impl of the trait must be empty (not override any items)
- [x] But impls of the trait are allowed to overlap
r? @nikomatsakis
