10689: Handle pub tuple fields in tuple structs r=Veykril a=adamrk
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.
I guess this is a really minor case because there's not much reason
for having a tuple type within a struct tuple, but it is valid rust syntax...
Co-authored-by: Adam Bratschi-Kaye <ark.email@gmail.com>
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.
10546: feat: Implement promote_local_to_const assist r=Veykril a=Veykril
Fixes#7692, that is now one can invoke the `extract_variable` assist on something and then follow that up with this assist to turn it into a const.
bors r+
Co-authored-by: Lukas Wirth <lukastw97@gmail.com>
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
{ ... }
