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
The code here is intentionally dense and does exactly what is written.
Explaining semantic difference between Rust 2015 and 2018 doesn't help
with understanding syntax. Better to just add more targeted tests.
FragmentKind played two roles:
* entry point to the parser
* syntactic category of a macro call
These are different use-cases, and warrant different types. For example,
macro can't expand to visibility, but we have such fragment today.
This PR introduces `ExpandsTo` enum to separate this two use-cases.
I suspect we might further split `FragmentKind` into `$x:specifier` enum
specific to MBE, and a general parser entry point, but that's for
another PR!
Group related stuff together, use only on path for parsing extern blocks
(they actually have modifiers).
Perhaps we should get rid of items_without_modifiers altogether? Better
to handle these kinds on diagnostics in validation layer...
