5572: Switch to ungrammar from ast_src r=matklad a=matklad
The primary advantage of ungrammar is that it (eventually) allows one
to describe concrete syntax tree structure -- with alternatives and
specific sequence of tokens & nodes.
That should be re-usable for:
* generate `make` calls
* Rust reference
* Hypothetical parser's evented API
We loose doc comments for the time being unfortunately. I don't think
we should add support for doc comments to ungrammar -- they'll make
grammar file hard to read. We might supply docs as out-of band info,
or maybe just via a reference, but we'll think about that once things
are no longer in flux
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <aleksey.kladov@gmail.com>
The primary advantage of ungrammar is that it (eventually) allows one
to describe concrete syntax tree structure -- with alternatives and
specific sequence of tokens & nodes.
That should be re-usable for:
* generate `make` calls
* Rust reference
* Hypothetical parser's evented API
We loose doc comments for the time being unfortunately. I don't think
we should add support for doc comments to ungrammar -- they'll make
grammar file hard to read. We might supply docs as out-of band info,
or maybe just via a reference, but we'll think about that once things
are no longer in flux
5564: SSR: Restrict to current selection if any r=davidlattimore a=davidlattimore
The selection is also used to avoid unnecessary work, but only to the file level. Further restricting unnecessary work is left for later.
Co-authored-by: David Lattimore <dml@google.com>
5565: SSR: Don't mix non-path-based rules with path-based r=matklad a=davidlattimore
If any rules contain paths, then we reject any rules that don't contain paths. Allowing a mix leads to strange semantics, since the path-based rules only match things where the path refers to semantically the same thing, whereas the non-path-based rules could match anything. Specifically, if we have a rule like `foo ==>> bar` we only want to match the `foo` that is in the current scope, not any `foo`. However "foo" can be parsed as a pattern (BIND_PAT -> NAME -> IDENT). Allowing such a rule through would result in renaming everything called `foo` to `bar`. It'd also be slow, since without a path, we'd have to use the slow-scan search mechanism.
Co-authored-by: David Lattimore <dml@google.com>
If any rules contain paths, then we reject any rules that don't contain paths. Allowing a mix leads to strange semantics, since the path-based rules only match things where the path refers to semantically the same thing, whereas the non-path-based rules could match anything. Specifically, if we have a rule like `foo ==>> bar` we only want to match the `foo` that is in the current scope, not any `foo`. However "foo" can be parsed as a pattern (BIND_PAT -> NAME -> IDENT). Allowing such a rule through would result in renaming everything called `foo` to `bar`. It'd also be slow, since without a path, we'd have to use the slow-scan search mechanism.
Addresses two issues:
- keep the parens from dbg!() in case the call is chained or there is
semantic difference if parens are excluded
- Exclude the semicolon after the dbg!(); by checking if it was
accidentally included in the macro_call
investigated, but decided against:
fix ast::MacroCall extraction to never include semicolons at the end -
this logic lives in rowan.
Defensively shorten the macro_range if there is a semicolon token.
Deleted unneccessary temp variable macro_args
Renamed macro_content to "paste_instead_of_dbg", because it isn't a
simple extraction of text inside dbg!() anymore
5528: README: Add some instructions for running typescript tests and linter. r=matklad a=davidlattimore
Co-authored-by: David Lattimore <dml@google.com>
5541: add completion for rustc lints r=matklad a=Emilgardis
This is a very naive approach to provide completions for lints.
Preferably, this would pull from current `rustup which rustc` via `rustc -W help <crate>`, but currently `rustc` only provides human output for lints.
also, clippy would be really nice but I feel like for that ra should really pull from clippy
Co-authored-by: Emil Gardström <emil.gardstrom@gmail.com>
It seems that Semantics::scope, if given a statement node, won't resolve
locals that were defined in the current scope, only in parent scopes.
Not sure if this is intended / expected behavior, but we work around it
for now by finding another nearby node to use as the scope (e.g. the
expression inside the EXPR_STMT).
