We treat macro calls as expressions (there's appropriate Into impl),
which causes problem if there's expresison and non-expression macro in
the same node (like in the match arm).
We fix this problem by nesting macor patterns into another node (the
same way we nest path into PathExpr or PathPat). Ideally, we probably
should add a similar nesting for macro expressions, but that needs
some careful thinking about macros in blocks: `{ am_i_expression!() }`.
3746: Add create_function assist r=flodiebold a=TimoFreiberg
The function part of #3639, creating methods will come later
- [X] Function arguments
- [X] Function call arguments
- [x] Method call arguments
- [x] Literal arguments
- [x] Variable reference arguments
- [X] Migrate to `ast::make` API
Done, but there are some ugly spots.
Issues to handle in another PR:
- function reference arguments: Their type isn't printed properly right now.
The "insert explicit type" assist has the same issue and this is probably a relatively rare usecase.
- generating proper names for all kinds of argument expressions (if, loop, ...?)
Without this, it's totally possible for the assist to generate invalid argument names.
I think the assist it's already helpful enough to be shipped as it is, at least for me the main usecase involves passing in named references.
Besides, the Rust tooling ecosystem is immature enough that some janky behaviour in a new assist probably won't scare anyone off.
- select the generated placeholder body so it's a bit easier to overwrite it
- create method (`self.foo<|>(..)` or `some_foo.foo<|>(..)`) instead of create_function.
The main difference would be finding (or creating) the impl block and inserting the `self` argument correctly
- more specific default arg names for literals.
So far, every generated argument whose name can't be taken from the call site is called `arg` (with a number suffix if necessary).
- creating functions in another module of the same crate.
E.g. when typing `some_mod::foo<|>(...)` when in `lib.rs`, I'd want to have `foo` generated in `some_mod.rs` and jump there.
Issues: the mod could exist in `some_mod.rs`, in `lib.rs` as `mod some_mod`, or inside another mod but be imported via `use other_mod::some_mod`.
- refer to arguments of the generated function with a qualified path if the types aren't imported yet
(alternative: run autoimport. i think starting with a qualified path is cleaner and there's already an assist to replace a qualified path with an import and an unqualified path)
- add type arguments of the arguments to the generated function
- Autocomplete functions with information from unresolved calls (see https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3746#issuecomment-605281323)
Issues: see https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rust-analyzer/pull/3746#issuecomment-605282542. The unresolved call could be anywhere. But just offering this autocompletion for unresolved calls in the same module would already be cool.
Co-authored-by: Timo Freiberg <timo.freiberg@gmail.com>
3814: Add impl From for enum variant assist r=flodiebold a=mattyhall
Basically adds a From impl for tuple enum variants with one field. It was recommended to me on the zulip to maybe try using the trait solver, but I had trouble with that as, although it could resolve the trait impl, it couldn't resolve the variable unambiguously in real use. I'm also unsure of how it would work if there were already multiple From impls to resolve - I can't see a way we could get more than one solution to my query.
Fixes#3766
Co-authored-by: Matthew Hall <matthew@quickbeam.me.uk>
This commit is a fixup of a bug I introduced by using a PackageId to refer to a crate when its name conflicts with a dependency.
It turns out the package id currently is `name version path` while cargo expects `name:version` as argument.
Basically adds a From impl for tuple enum variants with one field. Added
to cover the fairly common case of implementing your own Error that can
be created from another one, although other use cases exist.
3806: lower bool literal value r=flodiebold a=JoshMcguigan
Following up on #3805, this PR adds the literal value to `ast::LiteralKind` so when we lower we can use the actual value from the source code rather than the default value for the type. Ultimately I plan to use this for exhaustiveness checking in #3706.
I didn't include this in the previous PR because I wasn't sure if it made sense to add this information to `ast::LiteralKind` or provide some other mechanism to get this from `ast::Literal`.
For now I've only implemented this for boolean literals, but I think it could be easily extended to other types. A possible exception to this are string literals, since we may not want to clone around an owned string to hold onto in `ast::LiteralKind`, and it'd be nice to avoid adding a generic lifetime as well. Perhaps we won't ever care about the actual value of a string literal?
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
3797: Don't show chaining hints for record literals and unit structs r=matklad a=lnicola
Fixes#3796
r? @Veetaha
Co-authored-by: Laurențiu Nicola <lnicola@dend.ro>
3805: lower literal patterns r=JoshMcguigan a=JoshMcguigan
While working on #3706 I discovered literal patterns weren't being lowered. This PR implements that lowering.
Questions for reviewers:
1. This re-uses the existing conversion from `ast::LiteralKind` to `Literal`, but `ast::LiteralKind` doesn't include information about the actual value of the literal, which causes `Literal` to be created with the default value for the type (rather than the actual value in the source code). Am I correct in thinking that we'd eventually want to change things in such a way that we could initialize the `Literal` with the actual literal value? Is there an existing issue for this, or else perhaps I should create one to discuss how it should be implemented? My main question would be whether `ast::LiteralKind` should be extended to hold the actual value, or if we should provide some other way to get that information from `ast::Literal`?
2. I couldn't find tests which directly cover this, but it does seem to work in #3706. Do we have unit tests for this lowering code?
3. I'm not sure why `lit.literal()` returns an `Option`. Is returning a `Pat::Missing` in the `None` case the right thing to do?
4. I was basically practicing type-system driven development to figure out the transformation from `ast::Pat::LiteralPat` to `Pat::Lit`. I don't have an immediate question here, but I just wanted to ensure this section is looked at closely during review.
Co-authored-by: Josh Mcguigan <joshmcg88@gmail.com>
