Although structs and unions have the same syntax and differ only in
the keyword, re-using the single syntax node for both of them leads to
confusion in practice, and propagates further down the hir in an
upleasent way.
Moreover, static and consts also share syntax, but we use different
nodes for them.
Right now they are handled in `postfix_dot_expr`, but that doesn't allow it to
correctly handle precedence. Integrate it more tightly with the Pratt parser
instead.
Also includes a drive-by fix for parsing `match .. {}`.
Fixes#2242.
1951: Lower the precedence of the `as` operator. r=matklad a=goffrie
Previously, the `as` operator was being parsed like a postfix expression, and
therefore being given the highest possible precedence. That caused it to bind
more tightly than prefix operators, which it should not. Instead, parse it
somewhat like a normal binary expression with some special-casing.
Fixes#1851.
Co-authored-by: Geoffry Song <goffrie@gmail.com>
Forbidding block expressions entirely is too strict; instead, we should only
forbid them in contexts where we are parsing an optional RHS (i.e. the RHS of a
range expression).
Previously, the `as` operator was being parsed like a postfix expression, and
therefore being given the highest possible precedence. That caused it to bind
more tightly than prefix operators, which it should not. Instead, parse it
somewhat like a normal binary expression with some special-casing.
1848: Parse `..` as a full pattern r=matklad a=ecstatic-morse
Resolves#1479.
This PR implements [RFC 2707](https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2707) in the parser. It introduces a new `DotDotPat` AST node modeled on `PlaceholderPat` and changes the parsing of tuple and slice patterns to conform to the RFC.
Notably, this PR does *not* change the resulting AST when `..` appears in a struct pattern (e.g. `Struct { a, b: c, .. }`). I *think* this is the behavior mandated by RFC 2707, but someone should confirm this.
Co-authored-by: Dylan MacKenzie <ecstaticmorse@gmail.com>
Parser has the invariant that `{}` are balanced.
Previous code tried (unsucesfuly) maintain the same invariant for
`$()` as well, but it was done in a rather ad-hoc manner: it's not at
all obvious that it is possible to maintain both invariants!
Named structs can have `box` patterns that will bind to their fields.
This is similar to the behavior of the `ref` and `mut` fields, but is at
least a little bit surprising.
