The general problem we are dealing with here is this:
```
macro_rules! thrice {
($e:expr) => { $e * 3}
}
fn main() {
let x = thrice!(1 + 2);
}
```
we really want this to print 9 rather than 7.
The way rustc solves this is rather ad-hoc. In rustc, token trees are
allowed to include whole AST fragments, so 1+2 is passed through macro
expansion as a single unit. This is a significant violation of token
tree model.
In rust-analyzer, we intended to handle this in a more elegant way,
using token trees with "invisible" delimiters. The idea was is that we
introduce a new kind of parenthesis, "left $"/"right $", and let the
parser intelligently handle this.
The idea was inspired by the relevant comment in the proc_macro crate:
https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/proc_macro/enum.Delimiter.html#variant.None
> An implicit delimiter, that may, for example, appear around tokens
> coming from a “macro variable” $var. It is important to preserve
> operator priorities in cases like $var * 3 where $var is 1 + 2.
> Implicit delimiters might not survive roundtrip of a token stream
> through a string.
Now that we are older and wiser, we conclude that the idea doesn't work.
_First_, the comment in the proc-macro crate is wishful thinking. Rustc
currently completely ignores none delimiters. It solves the (1 + 2) * 3
problem by having magical token trees which can't be duplicated:
* https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/185405-t-compiler.2Frust-analyzer/topic/TIL.20that.20token.20streams.20are.20magic
* https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/131828-t-compiler/topic/Handling.20of.20Delimiter.3A.3ANone.20by.20the.20parser
_Second_, it's not like our implementation in rust-analyzer works. We
special-case expressions (as opposed to treating all kinds of $var
captures the same) and we don't know how parser error recovery should
work with these dollar-parenthesis.
So, in this PR we simplify the whole thing away by not pretending that
we are doing something proper and instead just explicitly special-casing
expressions by wrapping them into real `()`.
In the future, to maintain bug-parity with `rustc` what we are going to
do is probably adding an explicit `CAPTURED_EXPR` *token* which we can
explicitly account for in the parser.
If/when rustc starts handling delimiter=none properly, we'll port that
logic as well, in addition to special handling.
10603: fix: Don't resolve attributes to non attribute macros r=Veykril a=Veykril
Also changes `const`s to `static`s for `Limit`s as we have interior mutability in those(though only used with a certain feature flag enabled).
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
10387: Move `IdxRange` into la-arena r=Veykril a=arzg
Currently, `IdxRange` (named `IdRange`) is located in `hir_def::item_tree`, when really it isn’t specific to `hir_def` and could become part of la-arena. The rename from `IdRange` to `IdxRange` is to maintain consistency with the naming convention used throughout la-arena (`Idx` instead of `Id`, `RawIdx` instead of `RawId`). This PR also adds a few new APIs to la-arena on top of `IdxRange` for convenience, namely:
- indexing into an `Arena` by an `IdxRange` and getting a slice of values back
- creating an `IdxRange` from an inclusive range
Currently this PR also exposes a new `Arena::next_idx` method to make constructing inclusive`IdxRange`s using `IdxRange::new` easier; however, it would in my opinion be better to remove this as it allows for easy creation of out-of-bounds `Idx`s, when `IdxRange::new_inclusive` mostly covers the same use-case while being less error-prone.
I decided to bump the la-arena version to 0.3.0 from 0.2.0 because adding a new `Index` impl for `Arena` turned out to be a breaking change: I had to add a type hint in `crates/hir_def/src/body/scope.rs` when one wasn’t necessary before, since rustc couldn’t work out the type of a closure parameter now that there are multiple `Index` impls. I’m not sure whether this is the right decision, though.
Co-authored-by: Aramis Razzaghipour <aramisnoah@gmail.com>
I don't like our macro tests -- they are brittle and don't inspire
confidence. I think the reason for that is that we try to unit-test
them, but that is at odds with reality, where macro expansion
fundamentally depends on name resolution.
