There are two reasons why we don't want a generic ra_progress crate
just yet:
*First*, it introduces a common interface between separate components,
and that is usually undesirable (b/c components start to fit the
interface, rather than doing what makes most sense for each particular
component).
*Second*, it introduces a separate async channel for progress, which
makes it harder to correlate progress reports with the work done. Ie,
when we see 100% progress, it's not blindly obvious that the work has
actually finished, we might have some pending messages still.
4934: Remove special casing for library symbols r=matklad a=matklad
We might as well handle them internally, via queries.
I am not sure, but it looks like the current LibraryData setup might
even predate salsa? It's not really needed and creates a bunch of
complexity.
bors r+
🤖
Co-authored-by: Aleksey Kladov <aleksey.kladov@gmail.com>
We might as well handle them internally, via queries.
I am not sure, but it looks like the current LibraryData setup might
even predate salsa? It's not really needed and creates a bunch of
complexity.
Anchoring to the SourceRoot wont' work if the path is absolute:
#[path = "/tmp/foo.rs"]
mod foo;
Anchoring to a file will.
However, we *should* anchor, instead of just producing an abs path.
I can imagine a situation where, for example, rust-analyzer processes
crates from different machines (or, for example, from in-memory git
branch), where the same absolute path in different crates might refer
to different files in the end!
