Allow semicolon after closure within parentheses in macros #103224
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
rustbot
added
the
T-compiler
|
r? @fee1-dead (rust-highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
fee1-dead
reviewed
Oct 20, 2022
| @@ -2051,6 +2051,7 @@ impl<'a> Parser<'a> { | |||
|
|
|||
| if self.token.kind == TokenKind::Semi | |||
| && matches!(self.token_cursor.frame.delim_sp, Some((Delimiter::Parenthesis, _))) | |||
| && self.subparser_name.is_none() | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Could we add a helper method for checks like this to make it more readable?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I can if you want, but given that this is a hack, I don't want to necessarily encourage more use-cases of this within the parser. Thoughts?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It looks like there are no other places using this. I guess add a comment explaining what this means and then r= me.
fee1-dead
added
S-waiting-on-author
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
semi-after-closure-in-macro
branch
from
d8afdc3
to
3d035a0
Compare
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
semi-after-closure-in-macro
branch
from
3d035a0
to
af02c1e
Compare
compiler-errors
force-pushed
the
semi-after-closure-in-macro
branch
from
af02c1e
to
3d7b1f0
Compare
|
@bors r+ rollup |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 22, 2022
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - rust-lang#102602 (Slightly tweak comments wrt `lint_overflowing_range_endpoint`) - rust-lang#103190 (rustdoc: render bounds of cross-crate GAT params) - rust-lang#103224 (Allow semicolon after closure within parentheses in macros) - rust-lang#103280 ((rust-lang#102929) Implement `String::leak` (attempt 2)) - rust-lang#103329 (Add a forgotten check for NonNull::new_unchecked's precondition) - rust-lang#103346 (Adjust argument type for mutable with_metadata_of (rust-lang#75091)) - rust-lang#103360 (Reduce false positives in msys2 detection) Failed merges: r? `@ghost` `@rustbot` modify labels: rollup
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
#88546 added some parsing logic that if we're parsing a closure, and we're within parentheses, and a semicolon follows, then we must be parsing something erroneous like:
f(|| a; b), so it replaces the closure body with an error expression. However, it's valid to parse those tokens if we're within a macro, as in #103222.This is a bit unsatisfying fix. Is there a more robust way of checking that we're within a macro?
I would also be open to removing this "It is likely that the closure body is a block but where the braces have been removed" check altogether at the expense of more verbose errors, since it seems very suspicious in the first place...
Fixes #103222.