-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Move name resolution into phase 2 #33997
Conversation
This "unfixes" #33231, i.e. the following will error with extern crate doesnt_exist; //~ ERROR can't find crate
fn main() {} Currently, the following errors with #[macro_use] extern crate doesnt_exist; //~ ERROR can't find crate
fn main() {} I could keep #33231 fixed in this PR by checking for extern crate doesnt_exist; //< We need to know if this crate has a top-level module `bar` ...
mod bar {
macro_rules! m { () => {} }
}
fn main() {
use doesnt_exist::*; //< ... (which would be imported here) ...
bar::m!(); //< ... before we can expand this.
} |
d2d16d0
to
eccfd9f
Compare
|
||
let krate = { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is there any particular reason for this change besides style?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
No.
r=me with the renamed struct. |
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #33794) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
eccfd9f
to
22069ca
Compare
22069ca
to
66ab7a2
Compare
66ab7a2
to
3fc0407
Compare
@bors r=nrc |
📌 Commit 3fc0407 has been approved by |
Move name resolution into phase 2 r? @nrc
I really wish I was pinged about this. I spent a lot of effort fixing this issue, and now my projects don't compile because my fix was reverted. |
@SiegeLord sorry you weren't pinged. We will need to load all If you want to avoid loading That being said, I believe it would be possible to have |
I'm sure there's a solution, but that's not really the issue here. In my fix I specifically added a test so that this wouldn't get re-broken, but if there's an option to remove the test then there's literally 0 motivation to fix this again, because then somebody else will just remove the test next time it's convenient for them. I'll just stop using this broken feature. |
@SiegeLord That being said, as I stated earlier, you should have been pinged so we could discuss ways to still support your use case. I am offering to implement |
r? @nrc