| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
| |
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
1795: Make macro scope a real name scope and fix some details r=matklad a=uHOOCCOOHu
This PR make macro's module scope a real name scope in `PerNs`, instead of handling `Either<PerNs, MacroDef>` everywhere.
In `rustc`, the macro scope behave exactly the same as type and value scope.
It is valid that macros, types and values having exact the same name, and a `use` statement will import all of them. This happened to module `alloc::vec` and macro `alloc::vec!`.
So `Either` is not suitable here.
There is a trap that not only does `#[macro_use]` import all `#[macro_export] macro_rules`, but also imports all macros `use`d in the crate root.
In other words, it just _imports all macros in the module scope of crate root_. (Visibility of `use` doesn't matter.)
And it also happened to `libstd` which has `use alloc_crate::vec;` in crate root to re-export `alloc::vec`, which it both a module and a macro.
The current implementation of `#[macro_use] extern crate` doesn't work here, so that is why only macros directly from `libstd` like `dbg!` work, while `vec!` from `liballoc` doesn't.
This PR fixes this.
Another point is that, after some tests, I figure out that _`macro_rules` does NOT define macro in current module scope at all_.
It defines itself in legacy textual scope. And if `#[macro_export]` is given, it also is defined ONLY in module scope of crate root. (Then being `macro_use`d, as mentioned above)
(Well, the nightly [Declarative Macro 2.0](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39412) simply always define in current module scope only, just like normal items do. But it is not yet supported by us)
After this PR, in my test, all non-builtin macros are resolved now. (Hover text for documentation is available) So it fixes #1688 . Since compiler builtin macros are marked as `#[rustc_doc_only_macro]` instead of `#[macro_export]`, we can simply tweak the condition to let it resolved, but it may cause expansion error.
Some critical notes are also given in doc-comments.
<img width="447" alt="Screenshot_20190909_223859" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14816024/64540366-ac1ef600-d352-11e9-804f-566ba7559206.png">
Co-authored-by: uHOOCCOOHu <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Fix some details about module scoping
|
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
Some method resolution tests now yield `{unknown}` where they did not
before.
Other tests now succeed, likely because this is helping the solver
steer its efforts.
|
| | |
|
|/
|
|
|
| |
As discussed on Zulip, this actually matches the present behavior of
rustc.
|
|
|
|
| |
Add comments
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The clauses need to be wrapped in `FromEnv` clauses for elaboration (i.e.
things like inferring `T: Clone` from `T: Copy`) to work correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
E.g. if we have `T: some::Trait`, we can call methods from that trait without it
needing to be in scope.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
If/when we switch to using Chalk's Ty, we'll need to replace this by its `Fold`
trait, but I didn't want to import the whole thing just yet.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
It's a bit complicated because we basically have to 'undo' the desugaring, and
the result is very dependent on the specifics of the desugaring and will
probably produce weird results otherwise.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
... and use that instead of exposing the source map.
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
When we have one of these, the `Trait` doesn't need to be in scope to call its
methods. So we need to consider this when looking for method
candidates. (Actually I think the same is true when we have a bound `T:
some::Trait`, but we don't handle that yet).
At the same time, since Chalk doesn't handle these types yet, add a small hack
to skip Chalk in method resolution and just consider `impl Trait: Trait` always
true. This is enough to e.g. get completions for `impl Trait`, but since we
don't do any unification we won't infer the return type of e.g. `impl
Into<i64>::into()`.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
- refactor bounds handling in the AST a bit
- add HIR for bounds
- add `Ty::Dyn` and `Ty::Opaque` variants and lower `dyn Trait` / `impl Trait`
syntax to them
|
|
|
|
| |
closes #1709
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Unlike ast::BinOp, it has significantly more structure to it, so it's
easier to, say, handle all assignment-like operations in the same way.
|
|\
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | |
1691: Show inherent and trait impls of structs and enums r=viorina a=viorina
Co-authored-by: Ekaterina Babshukova <[email protected]>
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
|/ |
|