| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Note that `for` type is rust-analyzer's own invention.
Both the reference and syn allow `for` only for fnptr types, and we
allow them everywhere. This needs to be checked with respect to type
bounds grammar...
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The TypeRef name comes from IntelliJ days, where you often have both
type *syntax* as well as *semantical* representation of types in
scope. And naming both Type is confusing.
In rust-analyzer however, we use ast types as `ast::Type`, and have
many more semantic counterparts to ast types, so avoiding name clash
here is just confusing.
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The primary advantage of ungrammar is that it (eventually) allows one
to describe concrete syntax tree structure -- with alternatives and
specific sequence of tokens & nodes.
That should be re-usable for:
* generate `make` calls
* Rust reference
* Hypothetical parser's evented API
We loose doc comments for the time being unfortunately. I don't think
we should add support for doc comments to ungrammar -- they'll make
grammar file hard to read. We might supply docs as out-of band info,
or maybe just via a reference, but we'll think about that once things
are no longer in flux
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Like `Iterator<Item: SomeTrait>`.
This is an unstable feature, but it's used in the standard library e.g. in the
definition of Flatten, so we can't get away with not implementing it :)
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| | |
|
| |
|
