Method macros #15646
Merged
Method macros #15646
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This change propagates to many locations, but because of the Macro Exterminator (or, more properly, the invariant that it protects), macro invocations can't occur downstream of expansion. This means that in librustc and librustdoc, extracting the desired field can simply assume that it can't be a macro invocation. Functions in ast_util abstract over this check.
This is nice for macros, to allow them to expand into multiple methods
nothing wrong with a statement expanding into 0 stmts, that I can see.
this allows macro results to be parsed as methods
Member
|
Tidy issues: https://travis-ci.org/rust-lang/rust/jobs/29834978 |
Contributor
Author
|
@sfackler fixed, thanks! |
Contributor
|
r=me with the test and fix for the test squashed |
Contributor
Author
|
cmr: which test squashed? one commit is a run-pass test, the other is a unit test. Or am I misunderstanding you? |
Contributor
|
You're right, my bad. |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 13, 2014
This patch adds support for macros in method position. It follows roughly the template for Item macros, where an outer `Method` wrapper contains a `Method_` enum which can either be a macro invocation or a standard macro definition. One note; adding support for macros that expand into multiple methods is not included here, but should be a simple parser change, since this patch updates the type of fold_macro to return a smallvector of methods. For reviewers, please pay special attention to the parser changes; these are the ones I'm most concerned about. Because of the small change to the interface of fold_method, this is a ... [breaking change]
Contributor
Author
|
On Jul 14, 2014, at 7:06 AM, Mitchell Nordine [email protected] wrote:
Can you provide an example? Many thanks, John Clements |
flip1995
pushed a commit
to flip1995/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Sep 18, 2025
decided to put each lint extraction into a separate commit this time -- do let me know if you prefer all of that being in a single commit instead changelog: none
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
6 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
This patch adds support for macros in method position. It follows roughly the template for Item macros, where an outer
Methodwrapper contains aMethod_enum which can either be a macro invocation or a standard macro definition.One note; adding support for macros that expand into multiple methods is not included here, but should be a simple parser change, since this patch updates the type of fold_macro to return a smallvector of methods.
For reviewers, please pay special attention to the parser changes; these are the ones I'm most concerned about.
Because of the small change to the interface of fold_method, this is a ...
[breaking change]