| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
8560: Escape characters in doc comments in macros correctly r=jonas-schievink a=ChayimFriedman2
Previously they were escaped twice, both by `.escape_default()` and the debug view of strings (`{:?}`). This leads to things like newlines or tabs in documentation comments being `\\n`, but we unescape literals only once, ending up with `\n`.
This was hard to spot because CMark unescaped them (at least for `'` and `"`), but it did not do so in code blocks.
This also was the root cause of #7781. This issue was solved by using `.escape_debug()` instead of `.escape_default()`, but the real issue remained.
We can bring the `.escape_default()` back by now, however I didn't do it because it is probably slower than `.escape_debug()` (more work to do), and also in order to change the code the least.
Example (the keyword and primitive docs are `include!()`d at https://doc.rust-lang.org/src/std/lib.rs.html#570-578, and thus originate from macro):
Before:
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24700207/115130096-40544300-9ff5-11eb-847b-969e7034e8a4.png)
After:
![image](https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/24700207/115130143-9cb76280-9ff5-11eb-9281-323746089440.png)
Co-authored-by: Chayim Refael Friedman <[email protected]>
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Previously they were escaped twice, both by `.escape_default()` and the debug view of strings (`{:?}`). This leads to things like newlines or tabs in documentation comments being `\\n`, but we unescape literals only once, ending up with `\n`.
This was hard to spot because CMark unescaped them (at least for `'` and `"`), but it did not do so in code blocks.
This also was the root cause of #7781. This issue was solved by using `.escape_debug()` instead of `.escape_default()`, but the real issue remained.
We can bring the `.escape_default()` back by now, however I didn't do it because it is probably slower than `.escape_debug()` (more work to do), and also in order to change the code the least.
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
It could never return `None`, so reflect that in the return type
|
|/ |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|