10642: minor: Add dummy impls for `trace_macros` and `log_syntax` r=Veykril a=Veykril
Both of these are macros for debugging macros and as such don't really need an implementation for us.
Closes https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/2212
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
10633: fix: Implement most proc_macro span handling for other ABIs r=Veykril a=Veykril
Follow up to #10378
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
10634: minor: Drop resolver and `authors` manifest entry in `limit` r=lnicola a=lnicola
The new resolver is on by default in the 2021 edition,
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Laurențiu Nicola <lnicola@dend.ro>
10631: fix: Fix postfix completions panicking r=Veykril a=Veykril
Fixes https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/issues/10243, I couldn't reproduce the panic with the given snippet, but this change should still guard against it.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
10630: fix: Don't ask the user to reload when chaning HoverAction configs in VSCode r=Veykril a=Veykril
To my knowledge, all of these are re-read on hover requests so there is no longer a reason to reload when changing these.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
Converts `::<_>` to an explicit type assignment.
```
let args = args.collect::<Vec<String>>();
```
->
```
let args: Vec<String> = args.collect();
```
Closes#10285
The general problem we are dealing with here is this:
```
macro_rules! thrice {
($e:expr) => { $e * 3}
}
fn main() {
let x = thrice!(1 + 2);
}
```
we really want this to print 9 rather than 7.
The way rustc solves this is rather ad-hoc. In rustc, token trees are
allowed to include whole AST fragments, so 1+2 is passed through macro
expansion as a single unit. This is a significant violation of token
tree model.
In rust-analyzer, we intended to handle this in a more elegant way,
using token trees with "invisible" delimiters. The idea was is that we
introduce a new kind of parenthesis, "left $"/"right $", and let the
parser intelligently handle this.
The idea was inspired by the relevant comment in the proc_macro crate:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/proc_macro/enum.Delimiter.html#variant.None
> An implicit delimiter, that may, for example, appear around tokens
> coming from a “macro variable” $var. It is important to preserve
> operator priorities in cases like $var * 3 where $var is 1 + 2.
> Implicit delimiters might not survive roundtrip of a token stream
> through a string.
Now that we are older and wiser, we conclude that the idea doesn't work.
_First_, the comment in the proc-macro crate is wishful thinking. Rustc
currently completely ignores none delimiters. It solves the (1 + 2) * 3
problem by having magical token trees which can't be duplicated:
* https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/185405-t-compiler.2Frust-analyzer/topic/TIL.20that.20token.20streams.20are.20magic
* https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Handling.20of.20Delimiter.3A.3ANone.20by.20the.20parser
_Second_, it's not like our implementation in rust-analyzer works. We
special-case expressions (as opposed to treating all kinds of $var
captures the same) and we don't know how parser error recovery should
work with these dollar-parenthesis.
So, in this PR we simplify the whole thing away by not pretending that
we are doing something proper and instead just explicitly special-casing
expressions by wrapping them into real `()`.
In the future, to maintain bug-parity with `rustc` what we are going to
do is probably adding an explicit `CAPTURED_EXPR` *token* which we can
explicitly account for in the parser.
If/when rustc starts handling delimiter=none properly, we'll port that
logic as well, in addition to special handling.
10617: Set MSRV r=Veykril a=lnicola
Set the MSRV to `1.56` since we're already on the 2021 edition and building with older version fails.
From now on, there'll be a change in behavior: `xtask install` used to warn on old toolchains, but now the user will get an error. This isn't so bad because:
- the check in `xtask install` wasn't always working (because sometimes `xtask` itself required a newer toolchain)
- we generally bump the required version for a reason (when using a newer feature). We might forget to bump it, but when we do, older toolchains won't work
Co-authored-by: Laurențiu Nicola <lnicola@dend.ro>
10608: Amend the instruction for rustup. r=lnicola a=jhscheer
The current instruction for installation via rustup are misleading.
Co-authored-by: Jan Scheer <jhscheer@users.noreply.github.com>
