It wasn't testing the `const_arg` code path, it was actually hitting
const_param's default value code path, so move it to the right place
and rename it.
This has to re-introduce the `sink` pattern, because doing this purely
with iterators is awkward :( Maaaybe the event vector was a false start?
But, anyway, I like the current factoring more -- it sort-of obvious
that we do want to keep ws-attachment business in the parser, and that
we also don't want that to depend on the particular tree structure. I
think `shortcuts` module achieves that.
The general theme of this is to make parser a better independent
library.
The specific thing we do here is replacing callback based TreeSink with
a data structure. That is, rather than calling user-provided tree
construction methods, the parser now spits out a very bare-bones tree,
effectively a log of a DFS traversal.
This makes the parser usable without any *specifc* tree sink, and allows
us to, eg, move tests into this crate.
Now, it's also true that this is a distinction without a difference, as
the old and the new interface are equivalent in expressiveness. Still,
this new thing seems somewhat simpler. But yeah, I admit I don't have a
suuper strong motivation here, just a hunch that this is better.
The current implementation will throw a parser error for tuple structs
that contain a pub tuple field. For example,
```rust
struct Foo(pub (u32, u32));
```
is valid Rust, but rust-analyzer will throw a parser error. This is
because the parens after `pub` is treated as a visibility context.
Allowing a tuple type to follow `pub` in the special case when we are
defining fields in a tuple struct can fix the issue.
10440: Fix Clippy warnings and replace some `if let`s with `match` r=Veykril a=arzg
I decided to try fixing a bunch of Clippy warnings. I am aware of this project’s opinion of Clippy (I have read both [rust-lang/clippy#5537](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust-clippy/issues/5537) and [rust-analyzer/rowan#57 (comment)](https://github.com/rust-analyzer/rowan/pull/57#discussion_r415676159)), so I totally understand if part of or the entirety of this PR is rejected. In particular, I can see how the semicolons and `if let` vs `match` commits provide comparatively little benefit when compared to the ensuing churn.
I tried to separate each kind of change into its own commit to make it easier to discard certain changes. I also only applied Clippy suggestions where I thought they provided a definite improvement to the code (apart from semicolons, which is IMO more of a formatting/consistency question than a linting question). In the end I accumulated a list of 28 Clippy lints I ignored entirely.
Sidenote: I should really have asked about this on Zulip before going through all 1,555 `if let`s in the codebase to decide which ones definitely look better as `match` :P
Co-authored-by: Aramis Razzaghipour <aramisnoah@gmail.com>
Consider these expples
{ 92 }
async { 92 }
'a: { 92 }
#[a] { 92 }
Previously the tree for them were
BLOCK_EXPR
{ ... }
EFFECT_EXPR
async
BLOCK_EXPR
{ ... }
EFFECT_EXPR
'a:
BLOCK_EXPR
{ ... }
BLOCK_EXPR
#[a]
{ ... }
As you see, it gets progressively worse :) The last two items are
especially odd. The last one even violates the balanced curleys
invariant we have (#10357) The new approach is to say that the stuff in
`{}` is stmt_list, and the block is stmt_list + optional modifiers
BLOCK_EXPR
STMT_LIST
{ ... }
BLOCK_EXPR
async
STMT_LIST
{ ... }
BLOCK_EXPR
'a:
STMT_LIST
{ ... }
BLOCK_EXPR
#[a]
STMT_LIST
{ ... }
Previously we swapped to events in the buffer, but that might be wrong
if there aer `forward_parent` links pointing to the swapped-out node.
Let's do the same via parent links instead, keeping the nodes in place
