2479: Add expansion infrastructure for derive macros r=matklad a=flodiebold
I thought I'd experiment a bit with attribute macro/derive expansion, and here's what I've got so far. It has dummy implementations of the Copy / Clone derives, to show that the approach works; it doesn't add any attribute macro support, but I think that fits into the architecture.
Basically, during raw item collection, we look at the attributes and generate macro calls for them if necessary. Currently I only do this for derives, and just add the derive macro calls as separate calls next to the item. I think for derives, it's important that they don't obscure the actual item, since they can't actually change it (e.g. sending the item token tree through macro expansion unnecessarily might make completion within it more complicated).
Attribute macros would have to be recognized at that stage and replace the item (i.e., the raw item collector will just emit an attribute macro call, and not the item). I think when we implement this, we should try to recognize known inert attributes, so that we don't do macro expansion unnecessarily; anything that isn't known needs to be treated as a possible attribute macro call (since the raw item collector can't resolve the macro yet).
There's basically no name resolution for attribute macros implemented, I just hardcoded the built-in derives. In the future, the built-ins should work within the normal name resolution infrastructure; the problem there is that the builtin stubs in `std` use macros 2.0, which we don't support yet (and adding support is outside the scope of this).
One aspect that I don't really have a solution for, but I don't know how important it is, is removing the attribute itself from its input. I'm pretty sure rustc leaves out the attribute macro from the input, but to do that, we'd have to create a completely new syntax node. I guess we could do it when / after converting to a token tree.
Co-authored-by: Florian Diebold <flodiebold@gmail.com>
The current system with AstIds has two primaraly drawbacks:
* It is possible to manufacture IDs out of thin air.
For example, it's possible to create IDs for items which are not
considered in CrateDefMap due to cfg. Or it is possible to mixup
structs and unions, because they share ID space.
* Getting the ID of a parent requires a secondary index.
Instead, the plan is to pursue the more traditional approach, where
each items stores the id of the parent declaration. This makes
`FromSource` more awkward, but also more correct: now, to get from an
AST to HIR, we first do this recursively for the parent item, and the
just search the children of the parent for the matching def
