Rename NestedMetaItem to MetaItemInner

[codemountains]

Fixes #131087

r? @nnethercote

[rustbot]

Thanks for the pull request, and welcome! The Rust team is excited to review your changes, and you should hear from @nnethercote (or someone else) some time within the next two weeks.

Please see the contribution instructions for more information. Namely, in order to ensure the minimum review times lag, PR authors and assigned reviewers should ensure that the review label (S-waiting-on-review and S-waiting-on-author) stays updated, invoking these commands when appropriate:

• @rustbot author: the review is finished, PR author should check the comments and take action accordingly
• @rustbot review: the author is ready for a review, this PR will be queued again in the reviewer's queue

[rustbot]

Some changes occurred in src/tools/rustfmt

cc @rust-lang/rustfmt

Some changes occurred in src/librustdoc/clean/types.rs

cc @camelid

Some changes occurred in src/tools/clippy

cc @rust-lang/clippy

[rustbot]

There are merge commits (commits with multiple parents) in your changes. We have a no merge policy so these commits will need to be removed for this pull request to be merged.

You can start a rebase with the following commands:

$ # rebase
$ git pull --rebase https://github.com/rust-lang/rust.git master
$ git push --force-with-lease

The following commits are merge commits:

• 0aeb8b3

[bors]

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #131237) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

[nnethercote]

This is a good start! But for completeness there are some related names that should be changed as well. I grepped for nested_meta and found the following:

• nested_meta variable names -> meta_item_inner or meta_inner or inner
• parse_nested_meta method -> parse_meta_item_inner
  • often used with a nested closure argument -> inner
• visit_nested_meta_item -> visit_meta_item_inner

Please change these. You can do them in a separate commit. A few of them are in rustfmt, but that's fine, you can change them in this PR. Thanks!

[codemountains]

@nnethercote

Thank you for your thorough review! I appreciate your attention to detail. I've made most of the suggested changes, but there are a couple of exceptions I'd like to highlight:

• parse_nested_meta method -> parse_meta_item_inner
  • often used with a nested closure argument -> inner

• I haven't modified the parse_nested_meta method as it's part of the syn crate and not within our codebase to change.
  • The nested closure argument has been left as is because its type is ParseNestedMeta<'a>.

All other suggested changes have been implemented as requested.
Thank you again for your comprehensive review. Please let me know if you'd like me to make any further modifications or if you have any questions about the changes I've made.

[nnethercote]

Looks good. The added nested_meta commits are all so small, they can be combined into a single commit. (Sorry if my previous suggestion wasn't clear about that.) Once that's done I think it's good to go.

@bors delegate=codemountains

[bors]

✌️ @codemountains, you can now approve this pull request!

If @nnethercote told you to "r=me" after making some further change, please make that change, then do @bors r=@nnethercote

[codemountains]

@nnethercote

Thank you for your review! I've addressed the changes as requested. I've combined all the small nested_meta commits into a single commit for better clarity and organization. I appreciate your guidance on this.

Please let me know if there's anything else you'd like me to adjust or if you have any questions.

[nnethercote]

Thank you!

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit fc64ff7 has been approved by nnethercote

It is now in the queue for this repository.

[bors]

⌛ Testing commit fc64ff7 with merge 0b16baa...

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - checks-actions
Approved by: nnethercote
Pushing 0b16baa to master...

[rust-timer]

Finished benchmarking commit (0b16baa): comparison URL.

Overall result: ✅ improvements - no action needed

@rustbot label: -perf-regression

Instruction count

This is a highly reliable metric that was used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.

	mean	range	count
Regressions ❌ (primary)	-	-	0
Regressions ❌ (secondary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (primary)	-	-	0
Improvements ✅ (secondary)	-0.4%	[-0.4%, -0.4%]	1
All ❌✅ (primary)	-	-	0

Max RSS (memory usage)

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Cycles

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Binary size

This benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric.

Bootstrap: 774.76s -> 774.407s (-0.05%)
Artifact size: 329.55 MiB -> 329.55 MiB (-0.00%)