Remove `box_syntax`
r? `@Nilstrieb`
This removes the feature `box_syntax`, which allows the use of `box <expr>` to create a Box, and finalises removing use of the feature from the compiler. `box_patterns` (allowing the use of `box <pat>` in a pattern) is unaffected.
It also removes `ast::ExprKind::Box` - the only way to create a 'box' expression now is with the rustc-internal `#[rustc_box]` attribute.
As a temporary measure to help users move away, `box <expr>` now parses the inner expression, and emits a `MachineApplicable` lint to replace it with `Box::new`
Closes#49733
Gate usages of `dyn*` and const closures in macros
We silently accepted `dyn*` and const closures in macros as long as they didn't expand to anything containing these experimental features, unlike other gated features such as `for<'a>` binders on closures, etc. Let's not do that, to make sure nobody begins relying on this.
This makes it easier to open the messages file while developing on features.
The commit was the result of automatted changes:
for p in compiler/rustc_*; do mv $p/locales/en-US.ftl $p/messages.ftl; rmdir $p/locales; done
for p in compiler/rustc_*; do sed -i "s#\.\./locales/en-US.ftl#../messages.ftl#" $p/src/lib.rs; done
feat/refactor: improve errors in case of ident with number at start
Improve parser code when we parse a integer (or float) literal but expect an identifier. We emit an error message saying that identifiers can't begin with numbers. This PR just improves that code and expands it to all identifiers. Note that I haven't implemented error recovery (this didn't exist before anyway), I might do that in a follow up PR.
Replace parse_[sth]_expr with parse_expr_[sth] function names
This resolves an inconsistency in naming style for functions on the parser, where:
* functions parsing specific kinds of items are named `parse_item_[sth]` and
* functions parsing specific kinds of *expressions* are named `parse_[sth]_expr`
favoring the style used by functions for items. There are multiple advantages of that style:
* functions of both categories are collected in the same place in the [rustdoc output](https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/nightly-rustc/rustc_parse/parser/struct.Parser.html).
* it helps with autocompletion, as you can narrow down your search for a function to those about expressions.
* it mirrors rust's path syntax where less specific things come first, then it gets more specific, i.e. `std::collections::hash_map::Entry`.
The disadvantage is that it doesn't "read like a sentence" any more. But I think the advantages weigh more greatly.
This change was mostly application of this command:
```
sed -i -E 's/(fn |\.)parse_([[:alnum:]_]+)_expr/\1parse_expr_\2/' compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/*.rs
```
Plus very minor fixes outside of `rustc_parse`, and an invocation of `x fmt`.
This resolves an inconsistency in naming style for functions
on the parser, between functions parsing specific kinds of items
and those for expressions, favoring the parse_item_[sth] style
used by functions for items. There are multiple advantages
of that style:
* functions of both categories are collected in the same place
in the rustdoc output.
* it helps with autocompletion, as you can narrow down your
search for a function to those about expressions.
* it mirrors rust's path syntax where less specific things
come first, then it gets more specific, i.e.
std::collections::hash_map::Entry
The disadvantage is that it doesn't "read like a sentence"
any more, but I think the advantages weigh more greatly.
This change was mostly application of this command:
sed -i -E 's/(fn |\.)parse_([[:alnum:]_]+)_expr/\1parse_expr_\2/' compiler/rustc_parse/src/parser/*.rs
Plus very minor fixes outside of rustc_parse, and an invocation
of x fmt.
We currently provide wrong suggestions and unhelpful errors on closure
bodies with braces missing. For example, given the following code:
```
fn main() {
let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
}
```
the current output is like this:
```
error: expected expression, found `)`
--> ./main.rs:2:30
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ expected expression
error: closure bodies that contain statements must be surrounded by braces
--> ./main.rs:2:25
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^
3 | }
| ^
|
...
help: try adding braces
|
2 ~ let _x = Box::new(|x| {x+1;);
3 ~ }}
...
error: expected `;`, found `}`
--> ./main.rs:2:32
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ help: add `;` here
3 | }
| - unexpected token
error: aborting due to 3 previous errors
```
This commit allows outputting correct suggestions and errors. The above
code would output like this:
```
error: closure bodies that contain statements must be surrounded by braces
--> ./main.rs:2:25
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^ ^
|
note: statement found outside of a block
--> ./main.rs:2:29
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ---^ this `;` turns the preceding closure into a statement
| |
| this expression is a statement because of the trailing semicolon
note: the closure body may be incorrectly delimited
--> ./main.rs:2:23
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x|x+1;);
| ^^^^^^ - ...but likely you meant the closure to end here
| |
| this is the parsed closure...
help: try adding braces
|
2 | let _x = Box::new(|x| {x+1;});
| + +
error: aborting due to previous error
```
Instead of loading the Fluent resources for every crate in
`rustc_error_messages`, each crate generates typed identifiers for its
own diagnostics and creates a static which are pulled together in the
`rustc_driver` crate and provided to the diagnostic emitter.
Signed-off-by: David Wood <david.wood@huawei.com>
Use restricted Damerau-Levenshtein distance for diagnostics
This replaces the existing Levenshtein algorithm with the Damerau-Levenshtein algorithm. This means that "ab" to "ba" is one change (a transposition) instead of two (a deletion and insertion). More specifically, this is a _restricted_ implementation, in that "ca" to "abc" cannot be performed as "ca" → "ac" → "abc", as there is an insertion in the middle of a transposition. I believe that errors like that are sufficiently rare that it's not worth taking into account.
This was first brought up [on IRLO](https://internals.rust-lang.org/t/18227) when it was noticed that the diagnostic for `prinltn!` (transposed L and T) was `print!` and not `println!`. Only a single existing UI test was effected, with the result being an objective improvement.
~~I have left the method name and various other references to the Levenshtein algorithm untouched, as the exact manner in which the edit distance is calculated should not be relevant to the caller.~~
r? ``@estebank``
``@rustbot`` label +A-diagnostics +C-enhancement
