Update `?` repetition disambiguation.
**Do not merge** (yet)
This is a test implementation of some ideas from discussion in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/48075 . This PR
- disallows `?` repetition from taking a separator, since the separator is never used.
- disallows the use of `?` as a separator. This allows patterns like `$(a)?+` to match `+` and `a+` rather than `a?a?a`. This is a _breaking change_, but maybe that's ok? Perhaps a crater run is the right approach?
cc @durka @alexreg @nikomatsakis
macros: Remove matching on "complex" nonterminals requiring AST comparisons
So, you can actually use nonterminals from outer macros in left hand side of nested macros and invocations of nested macros will try to match passed arguments to them.
```rust
macro outer($nt_item: item) {
macro inner($nt_item) {
struct S;
}
inner!($nt_item); // OK, `$nt_item` matches `$nt_item`
}
```
Why this is bad:
- We can't do this matching correctly. When two nonterminals are compared, the original tokens are lost and we have to compare AST fragments instead. Right now the comparison is done by `PartialEq` impls derived on AST structures.
- On one hand, AST loses information compared to original tokens (e.g. trailing separators and other simplifications done during parsing to AST), so we can produce matches that are not actually correct.
- On another hand derived `PartialEq` impls for AST structures don't make much sense in general and compare various auxiliary garbage like spans. For the argument nonterminal to match we should use literally the same token (possibly cloned) as was used in the macro LHS (as in the example above). So we can reject matches that are actually correct.
- Support for nonterminal matching is the only thing that forces us to derive `PartialEq` for all (!) AST structures. As I mentioned these impls are also mostly nonsensical.
This PR removes support for matching on all nonterminals except for "simple" ones like `ident`, `lifetime` and `tt` for which we have original tokens that can be compared.
After this is done I'll submit another PR removing huge number of `PartialEq` impls from AST and HIR structures.
This is an arcane feature and I don't personally know why would anyone use it, but the change should ideally go through crater.
We'll be able to support this feature again in the future when all nonterminals have original token streams attached to them in addition to (or instead of) AST fragments.
Rustc explain
Fixes#48041.
To make the review easier, I separated tests update to code update. Also, I used this script to generate new ui tests stderr:
```python
from os import listdir
from os.path import isdir, isfile, join
PATH = "src/test/ui"
def do_something(path):
files = [join(path, f) for f in listdir(path)]
for f in files:
if isdir(f):
do_something(f)
continue
if not isfile(f) or not f.endswith(".stderr"):
continue
x = open(f, "r")
content = x.read().strip()
if "error[E" not in content:
continue
errors = dict()
for y in content.splitlines():
if y.startswith("error[E"):
errors[y[6:11]] = True
errors = sorted(errors.keys())
if len(errors) < 1:
print("weird... {}".format(f))
continue
if len(errors) > 1:
content += "\n\nYou've got a few errors: {}".format(", ".join(errors))
content += "\nIf you want more information on an error, try using \"rustc --explain {}\"".format(errors[0])
else:
content += "\n\nIf you want more information on this error, try using \"rustc --explain {}\"".format(errors[0])
content += "\n"
x = open(f, "w")
x.write(content)
do_something(PATH)
```
Sometimes the parser attempts to synthesize spans from within a macro
context with the span for the captured argument, leading to non-sensical
spans with very bad output. Given that an incorrect span is worse than
a partially incomplete span, when detecting this situation return only
one of the spans without mergin them.
Point at unused arguments for format string
Avoid overlapping spans by only pointing at the arguments that are not
being used in the argument string. Enable libsyntax to have diagnostics
with multiple primary spans by accepting `Into<MultiSpan>` instead of
`Span`.
Partially addresses #41850.
Avoid overlapping spans by only pointing at the arguments that are not
being used in the argument string. Enable libsyntax to have diagnostics
with multiple primary spans by accepting `Into<MultiSpan>` instead of
`Span`.
When we suggest the replacement for a macro we include the "!" in the
suggested replacement but the span only contains the name of the macro
itself. Using that replacement would cause a duplicate "!" in the
resulting code.
I originally tried to extend the span to be replaced by 1 byte in
rust-lang/rust#47424. However, @zackmdavis pointed out that there can be
whitespace between the macro name and the bang.
Instead, just remove the bang from the suggested replacement.
Fixes#47418
Point at path segment on module not found
Point at the correct path segment on a import statement where a module
doesn't exist.
New output:
```rust
error[E0432]: unresolved import `std::bar`
--> <anon>:1:10
|
1 | use std::bar::{foo1, foo2};
| ^^^ Could not find `bar` in `std`
```
instead of:
```rust
error[E0432]: unresolved import `std::bar::foo1`
--> <anon>:1:16
|
1 | use std::bar::{foo1, foo2};
| ^^^^ Could not find `bar` in `std`
error[E0432]: unresolved import `std::bar::foo2`
--> <anon>:1:22
|
1 | use std::bar::{foo1, foo2};
| ^^^^ Could not find `bar` in `std`
```
Fix#43040.
Point at the correct path segment on a import statement where a module
doesn't exist.
New output:
```rust
error[E0432]: unresolved import `std::bar`
--> <anon>:1:10
|
1 | use std::bar::{foo1, foo2};
| ^^^ Could not find `bar` in `std`
```
instead of:
```rust
error[E0432]: unresolved import `std::bar::foo1`
--> <anon>:1:16
|
1 | use std::bar::{foo1, foo2};
| ^^^^ Could not find `bar` in `std`
error[E0432]: unresolved import `std::bar::foo2`
--> <anon>:1:22
|
1 | use std::bar::{foo1, foo2};
| ^^^^ Could not find `bar` in `std`
```
trace_macro: Show both the macro call and its expansion. #42072.
See #42072 for the initial motivation behind this.
The change is not the minimal fix, but I want this behavior almost every time I use `trace_macros`.
Previously, `assert_eq!(left, right,)` (respectively, `assert_ne!(left,
right,)`; note the trailing comma) would result in a confusing "requires
at least a format string argument" error. In reality, a format string is
optional, but the trailing comma puts us into the "match a token tree of
zero or more tokens" branch of the macro (in order to support the
optional format string), and passing the empty token tree into
`format_args!` results in the confusing error. If instead we match a
token tree of one or more tokens, we get a much more sensible
"unexpected end of macro invocation" error.
While we're here, fix up a stray space before a comma in the match
guards.
Resolves#39369.
This teaches `format_args!` how to interpret format printf- and
shell-style format directives. This is used in cases where there are
unused formatting arguments, and the reason for that *might* be because
the programmer is trying to use the wrong kind of formatting string.
This was prompted by an issue encountered by simulacrum on the #rust IRC
channel. In short: although `println!` told them that they weren't using
all of the conversion arguments, the problem was in using printf-syle
directives rather than ones `println!` would undertand.
Where possible, `format_args!` will tell the programmer what they should
use instead. For example, it will suggest replacing `%05d` with `{:0>5}`,
or `%2$.*3$s` with `{1:.3$}`. Even if it cannot suggest a replacement,
it will explicitly note that Rust does not support that style of directive,
and direct the user to the `std::fmt` documentation.
