Parser has the invariant that `{}` are balanced.
Previous code tried (unsucesfuly) maintain the same invariant for
`$()` as well, but it was done in a rather ad-hoc manner: it's not at
all obvious that it is possible to maintain both invariants!
1797: Use VSCode fs API's in extension r=matklad a=LDSpits
This will close#1670.
I've replaced the `CargoWatcher`s `Cargo.toml` check with a version that uses the `fs` API of vscode.
While making this I've identified an issue with the detection of the `cargo.toml`, we can only load projects where the cargo.toml is in the root of the workspace. but that's a separate issue 😄
Co-authored-by: Lucas Spits <spits.lucas@gmail.com>
1795: Make macro scope a real name scope and fix some details r=matklad a=uHOOCCOOHu
This PR make macro's module scope a real name scope in `PerNs`, instead of handling `Either<PerNs, MacroDef>` everywhere.
In `rustc`, the macro scope behave exactly the same as type and value scope.
It is valid that macros, types and values having exact the same name, and a `use` statement will import all of them. This happened to module `alloc::vec` and macro `alloc::vec!`.
So `Either` is not suitable here.
There is a trap that not only does `#[macro_use]` import all `#[macro_export] macro_rules`, but also imports all macros `use`d in the crate root.
In other words, it just _imports all macros in the module scope of crate root_. (Visibility of `use` doesn't matter.)
And it also happened to `libstd` which has `use alloc_crate::vec;` in crate root to re-export `alloc::vec`, which it both a module and a macro.
The current implementation of `#[macro_use] extern crate` doesn't work here, so that is why only macros directly from `libstd` like `dbg!` work, while `vec!` from `liballoc` doesn't.
This PR fixes this.
Another point is that, after some tests, I figure out that _`macro_rules` does NOT define macro in current module scope at all_.
It defines itself in legacy textual scope. And if `#[macro_export]` is given, it also is defined ONLY in module scope of crate root. (Then being `macro_use`d, as mentioned above)
(Well, the nightly [Declarative Macro 2.0](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/39412) simply always define in current module scope only, just like normal items do. But it is not yet supported by us)
After this PR, in my test, all non-builtin macros are resolved now. (Hover text for documentation is available) So it fixes#1688 . Since compiler builtin macros are marked as `#[rustc_doc_only_macro]` instead of `#[macro_export]`, we can simply tweak the condition to let it resolved, but it may cause expansion error.
Some critical notes are also given in doc-comments.
<img width="447" alt="Screenshot_20190909_223859" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/14816024/64540366-ac1ef600-d352-11e9-804f-566ba7559206.png">
Co-authored-by: uHOOCCOOHu <hooccooh1896@gmail.com>
1800: make all traits non-enumerable r=flodiebold a=nikomatsakis
As discussed on Zulip, this actually matches the present behavior of rustc.
r? @flodiebold
Co-authored-by: Niko Matsakis <niko@alum.mit.edu>
Some method resolution tests now yield `{unknown}` where they did not
before.
Other tests now succeed, likely because this is helping the solver
steer its efforts.
