expand: Unimplement MutVisitor on MacroExpander
#63537
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
Each call to `fully_expand_fragment` is something unique, interesting, and requiring attention. It represents a "root" of expansion and its use means that something unusual is happening, like eager expansion or expansion performed outside of the primary expansion pass. So, it shouldn't be hide under a generic visitor call. Also, from all the implemented visitor methods only two were actually used.
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit d416ebe has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2019
expand: Unimplement `MutVisitor` on `MacroExpander` Each call to `fully_expand_fragment` is something unique, interesting, and requiring attention. It represents a "root" of expansion and its use means that something unusual is happening, like eager expansion or expansion performed outside of the primary expansion pass. So, it shouldn't hide under a generic visitor call. Also, from all the implemented visitor methods only two were actually used. cc rust-lang#63468 (comment)
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2019
expand: Unimplement `MutVisitor` on `MacroExpander` Each call to `fully_expand_fragment` is something unique, interesting, and requiring attention. It represents a "root" of expansion and its use means that something unusual is happening, like eager expansion or expansion performed outside of the primary expansion pass. So, it shouldn't hide under a generic visitor call. Also, from all the implemented visitor methods only two were actually used. cc rust-lang#63468 (comment)
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2019
Rollup of 10 pull requests Successful merges: - #62984 (Add lint for excess trailing semicolons) - #63075 (Miri: Check that a ptr is aligned and inbounds already when evaluating `*`) - #63490 (libsyntax: cleanup and refactor `pat.rs`) - #63495 ( Remove redundant `ty` fields from `mir::Constant` and `hair::pattern::PatternRange`.) - #63509 (Point at the right enclosing scope when using `await` in non-async fn) - #63528 (syntax: Remove `DummyResult::expr_only`) - #63534 (Bump to 1.39) - #63537 (expand: Unimplement `MutVisitor` on `MacroExpander`) - #63542 (Add NodeId for Arm, Field and FieldPat) - #63560 (move test that shouldn't be in test/run-pass/) Failed merges: r? @ghost
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2019
expand: Unimplement `MutVisitor` on `MacroExpander` Each call to `fully_expand_fragment` is something unique, interesting, and requiring attention. It represents a "root" of expansion and its use means that something unusual is happening, like eager expansion or expansion performed outside of the primary expansion pass. So, it shouldn't hide under a generic visitor call. Also, from all the implemented visitor methods only two were actually used. cc rust-lang#63468 (comment)
Centril
added a commit
to Centril/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 14, 2019
expand: Unimplement `MutVisitor` on `MacroExpander` Each call to `fully_expand_fragment` is something unique, interesting, and requiring attention. It represents a "root" of expansion and its use means that something unusual is happening, like eager expansion or expansion performed outside of the primary expansion pass. So, it shouldn't hide under a generic visitor call. Also, from all the implemented visitor methods only two were actually used. cc rust-lang#63468 (comment)
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 15, 2019
Rollup of 11 pull requests Successful merges: - #62984 (Add lint for excess trailing semicolons) - #63075 (Miri: Check that a ptr is aligned and inbounds already when evaluating `*`) - #63490 (libsyntax: cleanup and refactor `pat.rs`) - #63507 (When needing type annotations in local bindings, account for impl Trait and closures) - #63509 (Point at the right enclosing scope when using `await` in non-async fn) - #63528 (syntax: Remove `DummyResult::expr_only`) - #63537 (expand: Unimplement `MutVisitor` on `MacroExpander`) - #63542 (Add NodeId for Arm, Field and FieldPat) - #63543 (Merge Variant and Variant_) - #63560 (move test that shouldn't be in test/run-pass/) - #63570 (Adjust tracking issues for `MaybeUninit<T>` gates) Failed merges: r? @ghost
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #63575) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
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.
Each call to
fully_expand_fragmentis something unique, interesting, and requiring attention.It represents a "root" of expansion and its use means that something unusual is happening, like eager expansion or expansion performed outside of the primary expansion pass.
So, it shouldn't hide under a generic visitor call.
Also, from all the implemented visitor methods only two were actually used.
cc #63468 (comment)