| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
3919: Refactor tokena accessors r=matklad a=matklad
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
I think this makes is more clear which things are : AstNode and which
are : AstToken
|
| | |
|
|\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
3917: Improve tt::Subtree debug print r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
|
|\ \ \
| |/ /
|/| /
| |/
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
3915: Prettify generated code r=matklad a=matklad
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
3913: Remove allocations from LCA r=matklad a=matklad
I haven't actually profiled this, but not allocating a hash map (or
anything, really) seems like a good idea
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <[email protected]>
|
|/
|
|
|
| |
I haven't actually profiled this, but not allocating a hash map (or
anything, really) seems like a good idea
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
3912: Parse correctly fn f<T>() where T: Fn() -> u8 + Send {} r=matklad a=matklad
We used to parse it as T: Fn() -> (u8 + Send), which is different from
the rustc behavior of T: (Fn() -> u8) + Send
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Luca Barbieri <[email protected]>
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
We used to parse it as T: Fn() -> (u8 + Send), which is different from
the rustc behavior of T: (Fn() -> u8) + Send
|
|\|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
3911: Genrate token accessors r=matklad a=matklad
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Luca Barbieri <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
3909: Generate tokense r=matklad a=matklad
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Luca Barbieri <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
- Adds a new AstElement trait that is implemented by all generated
node, token and enum structs
- Overhauls the code generators to code-generate all tokens, and
also enhances enums to support including tokens, node, and nested
enums
|
|\ \
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | | |
3880: Add support for attributes for struct fields r=matklad a=bnjjj
Hello I try to solve this example:
```rust
struct MyStruct {
my_val: usize,
#[cfg(feature = "foo")]
bar: bool,
}
impl MyStruct {
#[cfg(feature = "foo")]
pub(crate) fn new(my_val: usize, bar: bool) -> Self {
Self { my_val, bar }
}
#[cfg(not(feature = "foo"))]
pub(crate) fn new(my_val: usize, _bar: bool) -> Self {
Self { my_val }
}
}
```
Here is a draft PR to try to solve this issue. In fact for now when i have this kind of example, rust-analyzer tells me that my second Self {} miss the bar field. Which is a bug.
I have some difficulties to add this features. Here in my draft I share my work about adding attributes support on struct field data. But I'm stuck when I have to fetch attributes from parent expressions. I don't really know how to do that. For the first iteration I just want to solve my issue without solving on all different expressions. And then after I will try to implement that on different kind of expression. I think I have to fetch my FunctionId and then I will be able to find attributes with myFunction.attrs() But I don't know if it's the right way.
@matklad (or anyone else) if you can help me it would be great :D
Co-authored-by: Benjamin Coenen <[email protected]>
|
| |\ \
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coenen <[email protected]>
|
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coenen <[email protected]>
|
| |\ \ \ |
|
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
Signed-off-by: Benjamin Coenen <[email protected]>
|
|\ \ \ \ \
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | | |
3908: Fix add missing items assist order r=matklad a=matklad
closes #3904
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <[email protected]>
|
|/ / / / /
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
closes #3904
|
|\ \ \ \ \
| |_|_|/ /
|/| | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
3906: Implement proc_macro rustc server r=matklad a=edwin0cheng
This PR implement the `ra_tt::TokenTree` based rustc server for lib_proc_macro.
Note that span information is not implemented yet.
Co-authored-by: Edwin Cheng <[email protected]>
|
| | | | | |
|
|/ / / / |
|
|\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
3902: Better Sublime Documentation r=matklad a=Elinvynia
LSP by default now has the correct rust-analyzer configuration, I feel like updating it will make it less confusing for new users.
Co-authored-by: Elinvynia <[email protected]>
|
|/ / / / |
|
|\ \ \ \
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | | |
3899: Enable the SemanticTokensFeature by default r=matklad a=kjeremy
This is covered under vscode's "editor.semanticHighlighting.enabled"
setting plus the user has to have a theme that has opted into highlighting.
Bumps required vscode stable to 1.44
Closes #3773
Co-authored-by: kjeremy <[email protected]>
|
|/ / / /
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
This is covered under vscode's "editor.semanticHighlighting.enabled"
setting plus the user has to have a theme that has opted into highlighting.
Bumps required vscode stable to 1.44
|
|\ \ \ \
| |_|_|/
|/| | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | |
| | | | |
3884: Match check fix missing pattern panic r=flodiebold a=JoshMcguigan
As reported by @cynecx, match arm exhaustiveness checking could panic when tuple enums were missing their pattern. This was reported in the comments of #3706.
This fixes the panic, and adds a similar test to ensure tuples don't have this problem.
It turns out malformed tuple patterns are caught in the "type check" outside the `is_useful` function, while malformed enum tuple patterns are not. This makes sense to me in hindsight, since the type checker can tell that an enum is the right type even if it is missing its internal pattern, but a tuple (non-enum) just becomes a different type if it is "missing" its pattern. This discrepency is why we report a diagnostic in the tuple case (because all arms are filtered out, so there are missing arms), but not in the enum tuple case (because we return an `Err(MalformedMatchArm)` from `is_useful`). I don't think this is that big of a deal, because in both cases this is malformed code and there should eventually be a `MalformedMatchArm` diagnostic or similar. But perhaps we should change things so that if any arm fails the type check we skip the entire diagnostic? That would at least make these two cases behave in the same way.
@flodiebold
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <[email protected]>
|
| | | | |
|
|/ / / |
|