Handle trait alias definitions
Part of #2773
This PR adds a bunch of structs and enum variants for trait aliases. Trait aliases should be handled as an independent item because they are semantically distinct from traits.
I basically started by adding `TraitAlias{Id, Loc}` to `hir_def::item_tree` and iterated adding necessary stuffs until compiler stopped complaining what's missing. Let me know if there's still anything I need to add.
I'm opening up this PR for early review and stuff. I'm planning to add tests for IDE functionalities in this PR, but not type-related support, for which I put FIXME notes.
Beginning of MIR
This pull request introduces the initial implementation of MIR lowering and interpreting in Rust Analyzer.
The implementation of MIR has potential to bring several benefits:
- Executing a unit test without compiling it: This is my main goal. It can be useful for quickly testing code changes and print-debugging unit tests without the need for a full compilation (ideally in almost zero time, similar to languages like python and js). There is a probability that it goes nowhere, it might become slower than rustc, or it might need some unreasonable amount of memory, or we may fail to support a common pattern/function that make it unusable for most of the codes.
- Constant evaluation: MIR allows for easier and more correct constant evaluation, on par with rustc. If r-a wants to fully support the type system, it needs full const eval, which means arbitrary code execution, which needs MIR or something similar.
- Supporting more diagnostics: MIR can be used to detect errors, most famously borrow checker and lifetime errors, but also mutability errors and uninitialized variables, which can be difficult/impossible to detect in HIR.
- Lowering closures: With MIR we can find out closure capture modes, which is useful in detecting if a closure implements the `FnMut` or `Fn` traits, and calculating its size and data layout.
But the current PR implements no diagnostics and doesn't support closures. About const eval, I removed the old const eval code and it now uses the mir interpreter. Everything that is supported in stable rustc is either implemented or is super easy to implement. About interpreting unit tests, I added an experimental config, disabled by default, that shows a `pass` or `fail` on hover of unit tests (ideally it should be a button similar to `Run test` button, but I didn't figured out how to add them). Currently, no real world test works, due to missing features including closures, heap allocation, `dyn Trait` and ... so at this point it is only useful for me selecting what to implement next.
The implementation of MIR is based on the design of rustc, the data structures are almost copy paste (so it should be easy to migrate it to a possible future stable-mir), but the lowering and interpreting code is from me.
Assist: desugar doc-comment
My need for this arose due to wanting to do feature dependent documentation and therefor convert parts of my doc-comments to attributes.
Not sure about the pub-making of the other handlers functions, but I didn't think it made much sense to reimplement them.
Add action to expand a declarative macro once, inline. Fixes#13598
This commit adds a new r-a method, `expandMacroInline`, which expands the macro that's currently selected. See #13598 for the most applicable issue; though I suspect it'll resolve part of #5949 and make #11888 significantly easier).
The macro works like this:
I have 2 questions before this PR can be merged:
1. **Should we rustfmt the output?** The advantage of doing this is neater code. The disadvantages are we'd have to format the whole expr/stmt/block (since there's no point just formatting one part, especially over multiple lines), and maybe it moves the code around more in weird ways. My suggestion here is to start off by not doing any formatting; and if it appears useful we can decide to do formatting in a later release.
2. **Is it worth solving the `$crate` hygiene issue now?** -- I think this PR is usable as of right now for some use-cases; but it is annoying that many common macros (i.e. `println!()`, `format!()`) can't be expanded further unless the user guesses the correct `$crate` value. The trouble with solving that issue is that I think it's complicated and imperfect. If we do solve it; we'd also need to either change the existing `expandMacro`/`expandMacroInline` commands; provide some option to allow/disallow `$crate` expanding; or come to some other compromise.
