rustc_parse: Tweak the function parameter name check #69587
Merged
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
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors r+ rollup |
|
📌 Commit 65a666c has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Feb 29, 2020
Rollup of 7 pull requests Successful merges: - #69504 (Use assert_ne in hash tests) - #69571 (remove unneeded .as_ref() calls.) - #69572 (use .iter() instead of .into_iter() on references) - #69581 (fix aliasing violation in align_to_mut) - #69582 (improve transmute and Vec::from_raw_parts docs) - #69584 (Correct comment to match behavior) - #69587 (rustc_parse: Tweak the function parameter name check) Failed merges: r? @ghost
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The function doesn't need a full token, only its edition.
Noticed while implementing #69384.
I'm still not sure whether normalized or unnormalized token is a better fit for the edition check here, so #69384 and this PR just keep the status quo behavior.
r? @Centril