You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
petrochenkov opened this issue
Aug 25, 2019
· 1 comment
Labels
regression-from-stable-to-betaPerformance or correctness regression from stable to beta.T-compilerRelevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
This is a regression from these series of pretty-printing improvements - #62393, #62574, #62667.
Tokens are printed more precisely now, so #[custom_slice(error(r#type = "()"))] is now printed as is, while previously it lost the "rawness" qualifier from type and was printed like this - #[custom_slice(error(type = "()"))].
(Pretty-printing matters because proc macros often have to work with pretty-printed version of their input due to #43081.)
Procedural macro define_slice_types_pair however doesn't recognize r#type as type and complains.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
regression-from-stable-to-betaPerformance or correctness regression from stable to beta.T-compilerRelevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
#63628 (comment)
This is a regression from these series of pretty-printing improvements - #62393, #62574, #62667.
Tokens are printed more precisely now, so
#[custom_slice(error(r#type = "()"))]
is now printed as is, while previously it lost the "rawness" qualifier fromtype
and was printed like this -#[custom_slice(error(type = "()"))]
.(Pretty-printing matters because proc macros often have to work with pretty-printed version of their input due to #43081.)
Procedural macro
define_slice_types_pair
however doesn't recognizer#type
astype
and complains.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: