Merge #2252

2252: Fix parsing of "postfix" range expressions. r=matklad a=goffrie

Right now they are handled in `postfix_dot_expr`, but that doesn't allow it to
correctly handle precedence. Integrate it more tightly with the Pratt parser
instead.

Also includes a drive-by fix for parsing `match .. {}`.

Fixes #2242.

Co-authored-by: Geoffry Song <[email protected]>

1 files changed, 10 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/crates/ra_syntax/src/validation.rs b/crates/ra_syntax/src/validation.rs
index 2d596763e..222ac15f8 100644
--- a/crates/ra_syntax/src/validation.rs
+++ b/crates/ra_syntax/src/validation.rs
@@ -103,6 +103,7 @@ pub(crate) fn validate(root: &SyntaxNode) -> Vec<SyntaxError> {
                 ast::FieldExpr(it) => { validate_numeric_name(it.name_ref(), &mut errors) },
                 ast::RecordField(it) => { validate_numeric_name(it.name_ref(), &mut errors) },
                 ast::Visibility(it) => { validate_visibility(it, &mut errors) },
+                ast::RangeExpr(it) => { validate_range_expr(it, &mut errors) },
                 _ => (),
             }
         }
@@ -227,3 +228,12 @@ fn validate_visibility(vis: ast::Visibility, errors: &mut Vec<SyntaxError>) {
             .push(SyntaxError::new(SyntaxErrorKind::VisibilityNotAllowed, vis.syntax.text_range()))
     }
 }
+
+fn validate_range_expr(expr: ast::RangeExpr, errors: &mut Vec<SyntaxError>) {
+    if expr.op_kind() == Some(ast::RangeOp::Inclusive) && expr.end().is_none() {
+        errors.push(SyntaxError::new(
+            SyntaxErrorKind::InclusiveRangeMissingEnd,
+            expr.syntax().text_range(),
+        ));
+    }
+}