Treat k#ident keywords as valid tokens
#119351
Closed
+283
−129
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
(rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
rust-analyzer is developed in its own repository. If possible, consider making this change to rust-lang/rust-analyzer instead. cc @rust-lang/rust-analyzer |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
Noratrieb
reviewed
Dec 27, 2023
compiler/rustc_ast/src/token.rs
Outdated
| @@ -299,6 +299,10 @@ pub enum TokenKind { | |||
| /// It's recommended to use `Token::(ident,uninterpolate,uninterpolated_span)` to | |||
| /// treat regular and interpolated identifiers in the same way. | |||
| Ident(Symbol, /* is_raw */ bool), | |||
|
|
|||
| /// A `k#ident` keyword | |||
| Keyword(Symbol), | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Actual keywords are Ident, so it seems confusing for a "forced keyword" to be special here.
WaffleLapkin
requested changes
Dec 27, 2023
compiler/rustc_ast/src/token.rs
Outdated
Comment on lines
303
to
304
| /// A `k#ident` keyword | ||
| Keyword(Symbol), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This should probably be merged with Ident, which, instead of /* is_raw */ bool would need
enum IdentKind {
/// The usual identifiers (or, depending on the context, keywords): `v`, `union`, `await`, `loop`.
Default,
/// Raw identifiers: `r#just_an_ident`, `r#loop`.
Raw,
/// Forced keywords: `k#break`, `k#await`, `k#some_new_experimental_keyword`.
Keyword,
}| @@ -185,6 +185,18 @@ impl<'a> StringReader<'a> { | |||
| self.sess.raw_identifier_spans.push(span); | |||
| token::Ident(sym, true) | |||
| } | |||
| // Treat `k#ident` as a normal identifier token before 2021. | |||
| rustc_lexer::TokenKind::KeywordIdent if !self.mk_sp(start, self.pos).edition().at_least_rust_2021() => { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Not is a bit hard to see here, would something like this work?
Suggested change
| rustc_lexer::TokenKind::KeywordIdent if !self.mk_sp(start, self.pos).edition().at_least_rust_2021() => { | |
| rustc_lexer::TokenKind::KeywordIdent if self.mk_sp(start, self.pos).edition() < Edition2021 => { |
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-author
|
just converted |
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #119384) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
The CI failure is due to #118861 |
|
The job Click to see the possible cause of the failure (guessed by this bot) |
|
closed due to design concerns, there is an alternative - using |
|
@fee1-dead what are the design concerns? |
|
No energy to revive this PR, so closing |
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.
We treat
k#identas a valid token, since it could be useful in implementing experimental features without introducing too much frontend changes (for example, with deref patterns). However, this PR as is would also make the following code compile:We'd probably want to prevent that from happening, so should we feature gate this specific token?