The current help message is too much about "normal" macros to be used
as general message. Keep it for normal macros, and add custom help and
error messages for macro definitions.
The current help message is too much about "normal" macros to be used
as general message. Keep it for normal macros, and add custom help and
error messages for macro definitions.
This PR is a rebase of the original PR by @eddyb https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/21836 with some unrebasable parts manually reapplied, feature gate added + type equality restriction added as described below.
This implementation is partial because the type equality restriction is applied to all type ascription expressions and not only those in lvalue contexts. Thus, all difficulties with detection of these contexts and translation of coercions having effect in runtime are avoided.
So, you can't write things with coercions like `let slice = &[1, 2, 3]: &[u8];`. It obviously makes type ascription less useful than it should be, but it's still much more useful than not having type ascription at all.
In particular, things like `let v = something.iter().collect(): Vec<_>;` and `let u = t.into(): U;` work as expected and I'm pretty happy with these improvements alone.
Part of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/23416
See https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/16 and https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/15701
- Added syntax support for attributes on expressions and all syntax nodes in statement position.
- Extended `#[cfg]` folder to allow removal of statements, and
of expressions in optional positions like expression lists and trailing
block expressions.
- Extended lint checker to recognize lint levels on expressions and
locals.
- As per RFC, attributes are not yet accepted on `if` expressions.
Examples:
```rust
let x = y;
{
...
}
assert_eq!((1, #[cfg(unset)] 2, 3), (1, 3));
let FOO = 0;
```
Implementation wise, there are a few rough corners and open questions:
- The parser work ended up a bit ugly.
- The pretty printer change was based mostly on guessing.
- Similar to the `if` case, there are some places in the grammar where a new `Expr` node starts,
but where it seemed weird to accept attributes and hence the parser doesn't. This includes:
- const expressions in patterns
- in the middle of an postfix operator chain (that is, after `.`, before indexing, before calls)
- on range expressions, since `#[attr] x .. y` parses as `(#[attr] x) .. y`, which is inconsistent with
`#[attr] .. y` which would parse as `#[attr] (.. y)`
- Attributes are added as additional `Option<Box<Vec<Attribute>>>` fields in expressions and locals.
- Memory impact has not been measured yet.
- A cfg-away trailing expression in a block does not currently promote the previous `StmtExpr` in a block to a new trailing expr. That is to say, this won't work:
```rust
let x = {
#[cfg(foo)]
Foo { data: x }
#[cfg(not(foo))]
Foo { data: y }
};
```
- One-element tuples can have their inner expression removed to become Unit, but just Parenthesis can't. Eg, `(#[cfg(unset)] x,) == ()` but `(#[cfg(unset)] x) == error`. This seemed reasonable to me since tuples and unit are type constructors, but could probably be argued either way.
- Attributes on macro nodes are currently unconditionally dropped during macro expansion, which seemed fine since macro disappear at that point?
- Attributes on `ast::ExprParens` will be prepend-ed to the inner expression in the hir folder.
- The work on pretty printer tests for this did trigger, but not fix errors regarding macros:
- expression `foo![]` prints as `foo!()`
- expression `foo!{}` prints as `foo!()`
- statement `foo![];` prints as `foo!();`
- statement `foo!{};` prints as `foo!();`
- statement `foo!{}` triggers a `None` unwrap ICE.
nodes in statement position.
Extended #[cfg] folder to allow removal of statements, and
of expressions in optional positions like expression lists and trailing
block expressions.
Extended lint checker to recognize lint levels on expressions and
locals.
[breaking change]
I'm not sure if those renames are ok. [TokenType::Tt* to TokenType::*](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/29582) was obvious, but for all those Item-enums it's less obvious to me what the right way forward is due to the underscore.
This is my first code contribution to Rust, so I'm sure there are some issues with the changes I've made.
I've added the `quote_arg!`, `quote_block!`, `quote_path!`, and `quote_meta_item!` quasiquoting macros. From my experience trying to build AST in compiler plugins, I would like to be able to build any AST piece with a quasiquoting macro (e.g., `quote_struct_field!` or `quote_variant!`) and then use those AST pieces in other quasiquoting macros, but this pull request just adds some of the low-hanging fruit.
I'm not sure if these additions are desirable, and I'm sure these macros can be implemented in an external crate if not.
