syntax_ext: remove leftover span_err_if_not_stage0 macro.
I believe this is the right fix for #53380, although I'm not sure what happened.
My guess is this copy of the macro was accidentally missed when others were removed?
cc @matthewjasper @varkor (please do not put this in a rollup, in case it fails)
Don't accept non-string literals for the format string in writeln
This is to improve diagnostics.
`println` and `eprintln` were already fixed by #52394.
Fixes#30143
When missing a comma in a macro call, suggest it, regardless of
position. When a macro call doesn't match any of the patterns, check
if the call's token stream could be missing a comma between two idents,
and if so, create a new token stream containing the comma and try to
match against the macro patterns. If successful, emit the suggestion.
Improve suggestion for missing fmt str in println
Avoid using `concat!(fmt, "\n")` to improve the diagnostics being
emitted when the first `println!()` argument isn't a formatting string
literal.
Fix#52347.
- Don't print the newline on its own to avoid the possibility of
printing it out of order due to `stdout` locking.
- Modify wording of `concat!()` with non-literals to not mislead into
believing that only `&str` literals are accepted.
- Add test for `concat!()` with non-literals.
Update `?` repetition disambiguation.
**Do not merge** (yet)
This is a test implementation of some ideas from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48075 . This PR
- disallows `?` repetition from taking a separator, since the separator is never used.
- disallows the use of `?` as a separator. This allows patterns like `$(a)?+` to match `+` and `a+` rather than `a?a?a`. This is a _breaking change_, but maybe that's ok? Perhaps a crater run is the right approach?
cc @durka @alexreg @nikomatsakis
macros: Remove matching on "complex" nonterminals requiring AST comparisons
So, you can actually use nonterminals from outer macros in left hand side of nested macros and invocations of nested macros will try to match passed arguments to them.
```rust
macro outer($nt_item: item) {
macro inner($nt_item) {
struct S;
}
inner!($nt_item); // OK, `$nt_item` matches `$nt_item`
}
```
Why this is bad:
- We can't do this matching correctly. When two nonterminals are compared, the original tokens are lost and we have to compare AST fragments instead. Right now the comparison is done by `PartialEq` impls derived on AST structures.
- On one hand, AST loses information compared to original tokens (e.g. trailing separators and other simplifications done during parsing to AST), so we can produce matches that are not actually correct.
- On another hand derived `PartialEq` impls for AST structures don't make much sense in general and compare various auxiliary garbage like spans. For the argument nonterminal to match we should use literally the same token (possibly cloned) as was used in the macro LHS (as in the example above). So we can reject matches that are actually correct.
- Support for nonterminal matching is the only thing that forces us to derive `PartialEq` for all (!) AST structures. As I mentioned these impls are also mostly nonsensical.
This PR removes support for matching on all nonterminals except for "simple" ones like `ident`, `lifetime` and `tt` for which we have original tokens that can be compared.
After this is done I'll submit another PR removing huge number of `PartialEq` impls from AST and HIR structures.
This is an arcane feature and I don't personally know why would anyone use it, but the change should ideally go through crater.
We'll be able to support this feature again in the future when all nonterminals have original token streams attached to them in addition to (or instead of) AST fragments.
