Fix, document, and test parser and pretty-printer edge cases related to braced macro calls #119427

dtolnay · 2023-12-30T03:11:49Z

Review note: this is a deceptively small PR because it comes with 145 lines of docs and 196 lines of tests, and only 25 lines of compiler code changed. However, I recommend reviewing it 1 commit at a time because much of the effect of the code changes is non-local i.e. affecting code that is not visible in the final state of the PR. I have paid attention that reviewing the PR one commit at a time is as easy as I can make it. All of the code you need to know about is touched in those commits, even if some of those changes disappear by the end of the stack.

This is a follow-up to #119105. One case that is not relevant to -Zunpretty=expanded, but which came up as I'm porting #119105 and #118726 into syn's printer and prettyplease's printer where it is relevant, and is also relevant to rustc's stringify!, is statement boundaries in the vicinity of braced macro calls.

Rustc's AST pretty-printer produces invalid syntax for statements that begin with a braced macro call:

macro_rules! stringify_item {
    ($i:item) => {
        stringify!($i)
    };
}

macro_rules! repro {
    ($e:expr) => {
        stringify_item!(fn main() { $e + 1; })
    };
}

fn main() {
    println!("{}", repro!(m! {}));
}

Before this PR: output is not valid Rust syntax.

fn main() { m! {} + 1; }

error: leading `+` is not supported
 --> <anon>:1:19
  |
1 | fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
  |                   ^ unexpected `+`
  |
help: try removing the `+`
  |
1 - fn main() { m! {} + 1; }
1 + fn main() { m! {}  1; }
  |

After this PR: valid syntax.

fn main() { (m! {}) + 1; }

rustbot · 2023-12-30T03:11:57Z

r? @WaffleLapkin

(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

WaffleLapkin

I think I agree with the idea, but I'm not sure about the implementation. Is there a way to make this nicer?

WaffleLapkin · 2024-01-02T14:06:17Z

compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/classify.rs

+        | TryBlock(..)
+        | ConstBlock(..) => false,
+
+        MacCall(mac_call) => mac_call.args.delim != Delimiter::Brace,


why is this needed, if all the call sites are not calling this if e ≈ MacCall?

In the commit that adds this MacCall case inside expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt, I change all the call sites to preserve their pre-existing behavior. So this case starts out as not reachable. But after that, one at a time for each call site, I update each call site that should be reaching this, together with adding documentation and tests for that call site.

tests/ui/macros/stringify.rs

compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs

bors · 2024-01-19T19:20:10Z

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #120121) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

WaffleLapkin · 2024-01-20T01:11:53Z

r? compiler

fmease · 2024-03-06T06:32:34Z

#120690
r? compiler

dtolnay · 2024-03-06T06:40:41Z

This is waiting on me to incorporate Waffle's insightful feedback, and to rebase.

Give a name to each distinct manipulation of pretty-printer FixupContext There are only 7 distinct ways that the AST pretty-printer interacts with FixupContext: 3 constructors (including Default), 2 transformations, and 2 queries. This PR turns these into associated functions which can be documented with examples. This PR unblocks rust-lang#119427 (comment). In order to improve the pretty-printer's behavior regarding parenthesization of braced macro calls in match arms, which have different grammar than macro calls in statements, FixupContext needs to be extended with 2 new fields. In the previous approach, that would be onerous. In the new approach, all it entails is 1 new constructor (`FixupContext::new_match_arm()`).

Rollup merge of rust-lang#124191 - dtolnay:fixup, r=compiler-errors Give a name to each distinct manipulation of pretty-printer FixupContext There are only 7 distinct ways that the AST pretty-printer interacts with FixupContext: 3 constructors (including Default), 2 transformations, and 2 queries. This PR turns these into associated functions which can be documented with examples. This PR unblocks rust-lang#119427 (comment). In order to improve the pretty-printer's behavior regarding parenthesization of braced macro calls in match arms, which have different grammar than macro calls in statements, FixupContext needs to be extended with 2 new fields. In the previous approach, that would be onerous. In the new approach, all it entails is 1 new constructor (`FixupContext::new_match_arm()`).

dtolnay · 2024-04-21T04:09:44Z

@rustbot ready

michaelwoerister · 2024-04-25T12:45:41Z

Thanks for the PR, @dtolnay, looks great! However, after looking through all the commits, I think I don't understand enough about the parsing subtleties involved here to review this.

r? parser

dtolnay · 2024-05-11T22:57:28Z

Rebased to fix conflict with Stabilise inline_const #104087

compiler/rustc_ast_pretty/src/pprust/state.rs

compiler/rustc_lint/src/unused.rs

compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs

compiler-errors · 2024-05-11T22:45:54Z

compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/expr.rs

        self.restrictions.contains(Restrictions::STMT_EXPR)
-            && !classify::expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt(e)
+            && !classify::expr_requires_comma_to_be_match_arm(e)


This is maybe my only nit in the PR: that expr_is_complete uses expr_requires_comma_to_be_match_arm "feels" a bit less self-descriptive than it could be, since we use expr_is_complete for things like parse_expr_dot_or_call_with_ which doesn't really have to do with match arms.

Not really sure how to make this actionable though, since I'm not sure if a rename seems tough. AFAICT this just preserves the old behavior, right?

Right, this is preserving old behavior. The exact same behavior that used to be incorrectly called expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt is now called expr_requires_comma_to_be_match_arm.

Regarding naming, one possibility is that instead of distinguishing a "commas in match arms" and "semicolons in statements" case (and the implicit 3rd case, expressions that are neither statement nor match arm, such as a function arg), we could rename things along the following lines:

"parse the longest possible expression"

"parse an expression using earlier boundary rule" (for a match arm, range, or whatever else looks at expr_is_complete)

"parse an expression until the earliest possible boundary" (for a statement)

Another possibility is to omit this specific commit ("Add classify::expr_requires_comma_to_be_match_arm") and keep using match e { MacCall(_) => …, _ => expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt(e) } in the cases where expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt is not the desired behavior.

One more option — instead of having what's currently in the PR:

// compiler/rustc_ast/src/util/classify.rs pub fn expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt(e: &ast::Expr) -> bool { match &e.kind { If(..) | Match(..) | Block(..) | While(..) | Loop(..) | ForLoop { .. } | TryBlock(..) | ConstBlock(..) => false, MacCall(mac_call) => mac_call.args.delim != Delimiter::Brace, _ => true, } } pub fn expr_requires_comma_to_be_match_arm(e: &ast::Expr) -> bool { match &e.kind { MacCall(_) => true, _ => expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt(e), } }

we could have:

pub fn expr_is_complete(e: &ast::Expr) -> bool { // this is negative of the old "expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt" match &e.kind { If(..) | Match(..) | Block(..) | While(..) | Loop(..) | ForLoop { .. } | TryBlock(..) | ConstBlock(..) => true, MacCall(_) | _ => false, } } pub fn expr_requires_semi_to_be_stmt(e: &ast::Expr) -> bool { match &e.kind { MacCall(mac_call) => mac_call.args.delim != Delimiter::Brace, _ => !expr_is_complete(e), } }

I prefer either the final option or the renaming you suggested first above. I'll leave it up to you. Otherwise this PR looks good to me.

I removed 5d5954c and added 10227ea.

compiler-errors

🆒

compiler-errors · 2024-05-12T00:47:53Z

@bors r+

bors · 2024-05-12T00:47:55Z

📌 Commit a9ec581 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

dtolnay · 2024-05-12T01:19:53Z

@bors r=compiler-errors

bors · 2024-05-12T01:19:56Z

📌 Commit 78c8dc1 has been approved by compiler-errors

It is now in the queue for this repository.

bors · 2024-05-12T04:18:23Z

⌛ Testing commit 78c8dc1 with merge 8cc6f34...

bors · 2024-05-12T06:25:13Z

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: compiler-errors
Pushing 8cc6f34 to master...

rust-timer · 2024-05-12T07:51:46Z

Finished benchmarking commit (8cc6f34): comparison URL.

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Max RSS (memory usage)

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	4.1%	[4.1%, 4.1%]	1
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-2.5%	[-2.5%, -2.5%]	1
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	0.8%	[-2.5%, 4.1%]	2

Cycles

Results

This is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	3.8%	[2.8%, 5.6%]	3
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-	-	0
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 675.636s -> 678.17s (0.38%)
Artifact size: 315.95 MiB -> 315.89 MiB (-0.02%)

Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence The representation of expression precedence in rustc_ast has been an obstacle to further improvements in the pretty-printer (continuing from rust-lang#119105 and rust-lang#119427). Previously the operation of *"does this expression have lower precedence than that one"* (relevant for parenthesis insertion in macro-generated syntax trees) consisted of 3 steps: 1. Convert `Expr` to `ExprPrecedence` using `.precedence()` 2. Convert `ExprPrecedence` to `i8` using `.order()` 3. Compare using `<` As far as I can guess, the reason for the separation between `precedence()` and `order()` was so that both `rustc_ast::Expr` and `rustc_hir::Expr` could convert as straightforwardly as possible to the same `ExprPrecedence` enum, and then the more finicky logic performed by `order` could be present just once. The mapping between `Expr` and `ExprPrecedence` was intended to be as straightforward as possible: ```rust match self.kind { ExprKind::Closure(..) => ExprPrecedence::Closure, ... } ``` although there were exceptions of both many-to-one, and one-to-many: ```rust ExprKind::Underscore => ExprPrecedence::Path, ExprKind::Path(..) => ExprPrecedence::Path, ... ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Prefix) => ExprPrecedence::Match, ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Postfix) => ExprPrecedence::PostfixMatch, ``` Where the nature of `ExprPrecedence` becomes problematic is when a single expression kind might be associated with multiple different precedence levels depending on context (outside the expression) and contents (inside the expression). For example consider what is the precedence of an ExprKind::Closure `$closure`. Well, on the left-hand side of a binary operator it would need parentheses in order to avoid the trailing binary operator being absorbed into the closure body: `($closure) + Rhs`, so the precedence is something lower than that of `+`. But on the right-hand side of a binary operator, a closure is just a straightforward prefix expression like a unary op, which is a relatively high precedence level, higher than binops but lower than method calls: `Lhs + $closure` is fine without parens but `($closure).method()` needs them. But as a third case, if the closure contains an explicit return type, then the precedence is an even higher level than that, never needing parenthesization even in a binop left-hand side or method call: `|| -> bool { false } + Rhs` or `|| -> bool { false }.method()`. You can see that trying to capture all of this resolution about expressions into `ExprPrecedence` violates the intention of `ExprPrecedence` being a straightforward one-to-one correspondence from each AST and HIR `ExprKind` variant. It would be possible to attempt that by doing stuff like `ExprPrecedence::Closure(Side::Leading, ReturnType::No)`, but I don't foresee the original envisioned benefit of the `precedence()`/`order()` distinction being retained in this approach. Instead I want to move toward a model that Syn has been using successfully. In Syn, there is a Precedence enum but it differs from rustc in the following ways: - There are [relatively few variants](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/precedence.rs#L11-L47) compared to rustc's `ExprPrecedence`. For example there is no distinction at the precedence level between returns and closures, or between loops and method calls. - We distinguish between [leading](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L293) and [trailing](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L309) precedence, taking into account an expression's context such as what token follows it (for various syntactic bail-outs in Rust's grammar, like ambiguities around break-with-value) and how it relates to operators from the surrounding syntax tree. - There are no hardcoded mysterious integer quantities like rustc's `PREC_CLOSURE = -40`. All precedence comparisons are performed via PartialOrd on a C-like enum. This PR is just a first step in these changes. As you can tell from Syn, I definitely think there is value in having a dedicated type to represent precedence, instead of what `order()` is doing with `i8`. But that is a whole separate adventure because rustc_ast doesn't even agree consistently on `i8` being the type for precedence order; `AssocOp::precedence` instead uses `usize` and there are casts in both directions. It is likely that a type called `ExprPrecedence` will re-appear, but it will look substantially different from the one that existed before this PR.

Rollup merge of rust-lang#133140 - dtolnay:precedence, r=fmease Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence The representation of expression precedence in rustc_ast has been an obstacle to further improvements in the pretty-printer (continuing from rust-lang#119105 and rust-lang#119427). Previously the operation of *"does this expression have lower precedence than that one"* (relevant for parenthesis insertion in macro-generated syntax trees) consisted of 3 steps: 1. Convert `Expr` to `ExprPrecedence` using `.precedence()` 2. Convert `ExprPrecedence` to `i8` using `.order()` 3. Compare using `<` As far as I can guess, the reason for the separation between `precedence()` and `order()` was so that both `rustc_ast::Expr` and `rustc_hir::Expr` could convert as straightforwardly as possible to the same `ExprPrecedence` enum, and then the more finicky logic performed by `order` could be present just once. The mapping between `Expr` and `ExprPrecedence` was intended to be as straightforward as possible: ```rust match self.kind { ExprKind::Closure(..) => ExprPrecedence::Closure, ... } ``` although there were exceptions of both many-to-one, and one-to-many: ```rust ExprKind::Underscore => ExprPrecedence::Path, ExprKind::Path(..) => ExprPrecedence::Path, ... ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Prefix) => ExprPrecedence::Match, ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Postfix) => ExprPrecedence::PostfixMatch, ``` Where the nature of `ExprPrecedence` becomes problematic is when a single expression kind might be associated with multiple different precedence levels depending on context (outside the expression) and contents (inside the expression). For example consider what is the precedence of an ExprKind::Closure `$closure`. Well, on the left-hand side of a binary operator it would need parentheses in order to avoid the trailing binary operator being absorbed into the closure body: `($closure) + Rhs`, so the precedence is something lower than that of `+`. But on the right-hand side of a binary operator, a closure is just a straightforward prefix expression like a unary op, which is a relatively high precedence level, higher than binops but lower than method calls: `Lhs + $closure` is fine without parens but `($closure).method()` needs them. But as a third case, if the closure contains an explicit return type, then the precedence is an even higher level than that, never needing parenthesization even in a binop left-hand side or method call: `|| -> bool { false } + Rhs` or `|| -> bool { false }.method()`. You can see that trying to capture all of this resolution about expressions into `ExprPrecedence` violates the intention of `ExprPrecedence` being a straightforward one-to-one correspondence from each AST and HIR `ExprKind` variant. It would be possible to attempt that by doing stuff like `ExprPrecedence::Closure(Side::Leading, ReturnType::No)`, but I don't foresee the original envisioned benefit of the `precedence()`/`order()` distinction being retained in this approach. Instead I want to move toward a model that Syn has been using successfully. In Syn, there is a Precedence enum but it differs from rustc in the following ways: - There are [relatively few variants](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/precedence.rs#L11-L47) compared to rustc's `ExprPrecedence`. For example there is no distinction at the precedence level between returns and closures, or between loops and method calls. - We distinguish between [leading](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L293) and [trailing](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L309) precedence, taking into account an expression's context such as what token follows it (for various syntactic bail-outs in Rust's grammar, like ambiguities around break-with-value) and how it relates to operators from the surrounding syntax tree. - There are no hardcoded mysterious integer quantities like rustc's `PREC_CLOSURE = -40`. All precedence comparisons are performed via PartialOrd on a C-like enum. This PR is just a first step in these changes. As you can tell from Syn, I definitely think there is value in having a dedicated type to represent precedence, instead of what `order()` is doing with `i8`. But that is a whole separate adventure because rustc_ast doesn't even agree consistently on `i8` being the type for precedence order; `AssocOp::precedence` instead uses `usize` and there are casts in both directions. It is likely that a type called `ExprPrecedence` will re-appear, but it will look substantially different from the one that existed before this PR.

Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence The representation of expression precedence in rustc_ast has been an obstacle to further improvements in the pretty-printer (continuing from rust-lang#119105 and rust-lang#119427). Previously the operation of *"does this expression have lower precedence than that one"* (relevant for parenthesis insertion in macro-generated syntax trees) consisted of 3 steps: 1. Convert `Expr` to `ExprPrecedence` using `.precedence()` 2. Convert `ExprPrecedence` to `i8` using `.order()` 3. Compare using `<` As far as I can guess, the reason for the separation between `precedence()` and `order()` was so that both `rustc_ast::Expr` and `rustc_hir::Expr` could convert as straightforwardly as possible to the same `ExprPrecedence` enum, and then the more finicky logic performed by `order` could be present just once. The mapping between `Expr` and `ExprPrecedence` was intended to be as straightforward as possible: ```rust match self.kind { ExprKind::Closure(..) => ExprPrecedence::Closure, ... } ``` although there were exceptions of both many-to-one, and one-to-many: ```rust ExprKind::Underscore => ExprPrecedence::Path, ExprKind::Path(..) => ExprPrecedence::Path, ... ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Prefix) => ExprPrecedence::Match, ExprKind::Match(_, _, MatchKind::Postfix) => ExprPrecedence::PostfixMatch, ``` Where the nature of `ExprPrecedence` becomes problematic is when a single expression kind might be associated with multiple different precedence levels depending on context (outside the expression) and contents (inside the expression). For example consider what is the precedence of an ExprKind::Closure `$closure`. Well, on the left-hand side of a binary operator it would need parentheses in order to avoid the trailing binary operator being absorbed into the closure body: `($closure) + Rhs`, so the precedence is something lower than that of `+`. But on the right-hand side of a binary operator, a closure is just a straightforward prefix expression like a unary op, which is a relatively high precedence level, higher than binops but lower than method calls: `Lhs + $closure` is fine without parens but `($closure).method()` needs them. But as a third case, if the closure contains an explicit return type, then the precedence is an even higher level than that, never needing parenthesization even in a binop left-hand side or method call: `|| -> bool { false } + Rhs` or `|| -> bool { false }.method()`. You can see that trying to capture all of this resolution about expressions into `ExprPrecedence` violates the intention of `ExprPrecedence` being a straightforward one-to-one correspondence from each AST and HIR `ExprKind` variant. It would be possible to attempt that by doing stuff like `ExprPrecedence::Closure(Side::Leading, ReturnType::No)`, but I don't foresee the original envisioned benefit of the `precedence()`/`order()` distinction being retained in this approach. Instead I want to move toward a model that Syn has been using successfully. In Syn, there is a Precedence enum but it differs from rustc in the following ways: - There are [relatively few variants](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/precedence.rs#L11-L47) compared to rustc's `ExprPrecedence`. For example there is no distinction at the precedence level between returns and closures, or between loops and method calls. - We distinguish between [leading](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L293) and [trailing](https://github.com/dtolnay/syn/blob/2.0.87/src/fixup.rs#L309) precedence, taking into account an expression's context such as what token follows it (for various syntactic bail-outs in Rust's grammar, like ambiguities around break-with-value) and how it relates to operators from the surrounding syntax tree. - There are no hardcoded mysterious integer quantities like rustc's `PREC_CLOSURE = -40`. All precedence comparisons are performed via PartialOrd on a C-like enum. This PR is just a first step in these changes. As you can tell from Syn, I definitely think there is value in having a dedicated type to represent precedence, instead of what `order()` is doing with `i8`. But that is a whole separate adventure because rustc_ast doesn't even agree consistently on `i8` being the type for precedence order; `AssocOp::precedence` instead uses `usize` and there are casts in both directions. It is likely that a type called `ExprPrecedence` will re-appear, but it will look substantially different from the one that existed before this PR.

rustbot assigned WaffleLapkin Dec 30, 2023

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. T-compiler Relevant to the compiler team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Dec 30, 2023

dtolnay added the A-pretty Area: Pretty printing (including `-Z unpretty`) label Dec 30, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

dtolnay force-pushed the maccall branch 2 times, most recently from 584de16 to 48ac127 Compare December 30, 2023 03:38

dtolnay added the A-parser Area: The parsing of Rust source code to an AST label Dec 30, 2023

WaffleLapkin requested changes Jan 2, 2024

View reviewed changes

rustbot added S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jan 2, 2024

rustbot assigned b-naber and unassigned WaffleLapkin Jan 20, 2024

rustbot assigned michaelwoerister and unassigned b-naber Mar 6, 2024

dtolnay mentioned this pull request Apr 20, 2024

Give a name to each distinct manipulation of pretty-printer FixupContext #124191

Merged

dtolnay force-pushed the maccall branch from 48ac127 to 1cc3c4f Compare April 21, 2024 04:04

rustbot added S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. and removed S-waiting-on-author Status: This is awaiting some action (such as code changes or more information) from the author. labels Apr 21, 2024

rustbot assigned spastorino Apr 25, 2024

dtolnay force-pushed the maccall branch from 56a4d46 to 60f5390 Compare May 11, 2024 22:57

dtolnay mentioned this pull request May 11, 2024

Create a module for expr classification functions dtolnay/syn#1647

Merged

compiler-errors reviewed May 11, 2024

View reviewed changes

dtolnay force-pushed the maccall branch from 60f5390 to a9ec581 Compare May 12, 2024 00:43

compiler-errors approved these changes May 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels May 12, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

Sign in to view

dtolnay added 2 commits May 11, 2024 18:18

Add classify::expr_is_complete

10227ea

Fix redundant parens around braced macro call in match arms

78c8dc1

dtolnay force-pushed the maccall branch from a9ec581 to 78c8dc1 Compare May 12, 2024 01:18

bors added the merged-by-bors This PR was explicitly merged by bors. label May 12, 2024

bors merged commit 8cc6f34 into rust-lang:master May 12, 2024
7 checks passed

rustbot added this to the 1.80.0 milestone May 12, 2024

dtolnay deleted the maccall branch May 12, 2024 09:48

dtolnay mentioned this pull request May 16, 2024

Differentiate statement boundary rules for stmt vs match arm dtolnay/syn#1657

Merged

dtolnay mentioned this pull request Nov 17, 2024

Inline ExprPrecedence::order into Expr::precedence #133140

Merged

dtolnay mentioned this pull request Dec 20, 2024

Precedence improvements: closures and jumps #133782

Merged

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Fix, document, and test parser and pretty-printer edge cases related to braced macro calls #119427

Fix, document, and test parser and pretty-printer edge cases related to braced macro calls #119427

dtolnay commented Dec 30, 2023

rustbot commented Dec 30, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

WaffleLapkin left a comment

WaffleLapkin Jan 2, 2024

dtolnay Apr 21, 2024

bors commented Jan 19, 2024

WaffleLapkin commented Jan 20, 2024

fmease commented Mar 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dtolnay commented Mar 6, 2024

dtolnay commented Apr 21, 2024

michaelwoerister commented Apr 25, 2024

dtolnay commented May 11, 2024

compiler-errors May 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dtolnay May 11, 2024

dtolnay May 11, 2024

compiler-errors May 12, 2024

dtolnay May 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading

compiler-errors left a comment

compiler-errors commented May 12, 2024

bors commented May 12, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

dtolnay commented May 12, 2024

bors commented May 12, 2024

bors commented May 12, 2024

bors commented May 12, 2024

rust-timer commented May 12, 2024

Fix, document, and test parser and pretty-printer edge cases related to braced macro calls #119427

Fix, document, and test parser and pretty-printer edge cases related to braced macro calls #119427

Conversation

dtolnay commented Dec 30, 2023

rustbot commented Dec 30, 2023

This comment has been minimized.

WaffleLapkin left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

bors commented Jan 19, 2024

WaffleLapkin commented Jan 20, 2024

fmease commented Mar 6, 2024 • edited Loading

dtolnay commented Mar 6, 2024

dtolnay commented Apr 21, 2024

michaelwoerister commented Apr 25, 2024

dtolnay commented May 11, 2024

compiler-errors May 11, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

dtolnay May 12, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

compiler-errors left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

compiler-errors commented May 12, 2024

bors commented May 12, 2024

This comment has been minimized.

dtolnay commented May 12, 2024

bors commented May 12, 2024

bors commented May 12, 2024

bors commented May 12, 2024

rust-timer commented May 12, 2024

Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed

fmease commented Mar 6, 2024 •

edited

Loading

compiler-errors May 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading

dtolnay May 12, 2024 •

edited

Loading