Previously, `/**/` was incorrectly regarded as a doc comment because it
starts with `/**` and ends with `*/`. However, this caused an ICE
because some code assumed that the length of a doc comment is at least
5. This commit adds an additional check to `is_block_doc_comment` that
tests the length of the input.
Fixes#28844.
This PR removes random remaining `Ident`s outside of libsyntax and performs general cleanup
In particular, interfaces of `Name` and `Ident` are tidied up, `Name`s and `Ident`s being small `Copy` aggregates are always passed to functions by value, and `Ident`s are never used as keys in maps, because `Ident` comparisons are tricky.
Although this PR closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/6993 there's still work related to it:
- `Name` can be made `NonZero` to compress numerous `Option<Name>`s and `Option<Ident>`s but it requires const unsafe functions.
- Implementation of `PartialEq` on `Ident` should be eliminated and replaced with explicit hygienic, non-hygienic or member-wise comparisons.
- Finally, large parts of AST can potentially be converted to `Name`s in the same way as HIR to clearly separate identifiers used in hygienic and non-hygienic contexts.
r? @nrc
Make sure Name, SyntaxContext and Ident are passed by value
Make sure Idents don't serve as keys (or parts of keys) in maps, Ident comparison is not well defined
There is a dead code in libsyntax/parser/parse.rs, when parsing structs.
Two functions are involved:
* [parse_item_struct](cd9c9f048f/src/libsyntax/parse/parser.rs (L4691))
* [parse_tuple_struct_body](cd9c9f048f/src/libsyntax/parse/parser.rs (L4769))
The problem is that both functions handle the case with unit structs. But because
`parse_tuple_struct_body` is called from `parse_item_struct`, it never faces
this case.
This PR removes unit struct case from `parse_tuple_struct_body` function. I tested with `make -j8 check-statge1`.
Both `parse_tuple_struct_body` and `parse_item_struct` handled the case
of unit like struct. The redundancy is removed,
`parse_tuple_struct_body` now handles only real tuple structs.
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1212][rfc] which tweaks the behavior of
the `str::lines` and `BufRead::lines` iterators. Both iterators now account for
`\r\n` sequences in addition to `\n`, allowing for less surprising behavior
across platforms (especially in the `BufRead` case). Splitting *only* on the
`\n` character can still be achieved with `split('\n')` in both cases.
The `str::lines_any` function is also now deprecated as `str::lines` is a
drop-in replacement for it.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1212-line-endings.mdCloses#28032
This commit is an implementation of [RFC 1212][rfc] which tweaks the behavior of
the `str::lines` and `BufRead::lines` iterators. Both iterators now account for
`\r\n` sequences in addition to `\n`, allowing for less surprising behavior
across platforms (especially in the `BufRead` case). Splitting *only* on the
`\n` character can still be achieved with `split('\n')` in both cases.
The `str::lines_any` function is also now deprecated as `str::lines` is a
drop-in replacement for it.
[rfc]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/1212-line-endings.mdCloses#28032
`LocalSource` indicated wether a let binding originated from for-loop desugaring to enable specialized error messages, but for-loop expansion has changed and this is now achieved through `MatchSource::ForLoopDesugar`.
Macro desugaring of `in PLACE { BLOCK }` into "simpler" expressions following the in-development "Placer" protocol.
Includes Placer API that one can override to integrate support for `in` into one's own type. (See [RFC 809].)
[RFC 809]: https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/blob/master/text/0809-box-and-in-for-stdlib.md
Part of #22181
Replaced PR #26180.
Turns on the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax, while leaving in support for the old `box (PLACE) EXPR` syntax (since we need to support that at least until we have a snapshot with support for `in PLACE { BLOCK }`.
(Note that we are not 100% committed to the `in PLACE { BLOCK }` syntax. In particular I still want to play around with some other alternatives. Still, I want to get the fundamental framework for the protocol landed so we can play with implementing it for non `Box` types.)
----
Also, this PR leaves out support for desugaring-based `box EXPR`. We will hopefully land that in the future, but for the short term there are type-inference issues injected by that change that we want to resolve separately.
