-
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
Implement macro meta-variable expressions #93545
Conversation
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.
If more documentation needs to be created, then I will do so in a following PR.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
src/test/ui/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/feature-gate-macro_metavar_expr.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Could you please separate out the change from |
src/test/ui/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/feature-gate-macro_metavar_expr.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/ui/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/feature-gate-macro_metavar_expr.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
src/test/ui/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/feature-gate-macro_metavar_expr.rs
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
I still don't understand two things:
|
We need tests making sure that all kinds of erroneous conditions produce errors:
|
Also, parsing functions returning |
Now it is coding time! Thank you very much for the review @petrochenkov! I will address everything and reach back as soon as possible |
+1, the 'x' -> `x` changes are off-topic for this PR. |
This also needs a second look from someone who is actually familiar with all this macro repetition logic, because I'm not. |
I will probably finish the remaining stuff tomorrow |
I'll try to take a look soon. |
583c234
to
49645c0
Compare
My understanding is that ignored tokens are indeed counted but don't produce any output (https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93545/files#diff-727806e582042b1e7f196258a14707cc155d7ba36ab925066d3f7b43e6097b6fR511).
https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93545/files#diff-23d875c394e16567144626114846b378fc49bbb8feedf5871399860ac5538744 has an extensive set of comments that hopefully will help understanding the difference between both.
Did a fair amount of rewriting to improve these errors
Removed |
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.
@c410-f3r Nice work navigating this very tricky and confusing code!
I left a bunch of comments in various places. My main concerns:
- I think one of the changes to
macro_check
is incomplete. I left a comment below. - I think
count_repetitions
needs more comments, as it is not obvious what it does or why at a glance. I also left comments/suggestions there.
which of the PR implements ignore, I don't see where variables used inside ${...} are marked as used, but apparently the variables used inside ignore are indeed counted as used because there's no warning.
If you mean linting for unused meta-variables, I don't think we have any. It might be a good lint to add...
EDIT: I mean it doesn't exist for macros in general, and we should add it as a separate feature in a different PR.
If you mean checking for the number of iterations (e.g. so that $(${ignore(x)} a)*
outputs a
the number of times $x
matched), that is done by lockstep_iter_size
. The call to lockstep_iter_size
from transcribe
gets the number of repetitions matched by all variables repeating at that depth (and checks that all variables repeat the same amount).
Thank you very much for the review, @mark-i-m! I really should have put more comments :) |
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.
The core logic looks good to me!
I left some comments about minor concerns below, most notably the error messages. I think this PR can be merged, but those things should be fixed before the feature is stabilized.
@petrochenkov feel free to r=me
Right... forgot bors doesn't look in reviews... |
@mark-i-m Thank you very much for the review and if desired, feel free to suggest more changes |
I've noticed one unaddressed comment here - #93545 (comment). |
Based on #93545 (comment) and other comments, this case will be handled in a following PR |
src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/feature-gate-macro_metavar_expr.rs
Show resolved
Hide resolved
I started reviewing this, but didn't finish - the PR is too large. Could you split it into 2 PRs:
|
Addressed the comments here and created #94368 as requested |
…aaaa, r=petrochenkov [1/2] Implement macro meta-variable expressions See rust-lang#93545 (comment) The logic behind `length`, `index` and `count` was removed but the parsing code is still present, i.e., everything is simply ignored like `ignored`. r? `@petrochenkov`
…aaaa, r=petrochenkov [1/2] Implement macro meta-variable expressions See rust-lang#93545 (comment) The logic behind `length`, `index` and `count` was removed but the parsing code is still present, i.e., everything is simply ignored like `ignored`. r? `@petrochenkov`
…aaaa, r=petrochenkov [1/2] Implement macro meta-variable expressions See rust-lang#93545 (comment) The logic behind `length`, `index` and `count` was removed but the parsing code is still present, i.e., everything is simply ignored like `ignored`. r? ``@petrochenkov``
[2/2] Implement macro meta-variable expression Final part of rust-lang#93545 (comment) r? `@petrochenkov`
Fix remaining meta-variable expression TODOs As promised on rust-lang#93545. cc rust-lang#83527 cc `@mark-i-m` cc `@petrochenkov`
…lett Stabilize `$$` in Rust 1.63.0 # Stabilization proposal This PR proposes the stabilization of a subset of `#![feature(macro_metavar_expr)]` or more specifically, the stabilization of dollar-dollar (`$$`). Tracking issue: rust-lang#83527 Version: 1.63 (2022-06-28 => beta, 2022-08-11 => stable). ## What is stabilized ```rust macro_rules! foo { () => { macro_rules! bar { ( $$( $$any:tt )* ) => { $$( $$any )* }; } }; } fn main() { foo!(); } ``` ## Motivation For more examples, see the [RFC](https://github.com/markbt/rfcs/blob/macro_metavar_expr/text/0000-macro-metavar-expr.md). Users must currently resort to a tricky and not so well-known hack to declare nested macros with repetitions. ```rust macro_rules! foo { ($dollar:tt) => { macro_rules! bar { ( $dollar ( $any:tt )* ) => { $dollar ( $any )* }; } }; } fn main() { foo!($); } ``` As seen above, such hack is fragile and makes work with declarative macros much more unpleasant. Dollar-dollar (`$$`), on the other hand, makes nested macros more intuitive. ## What isn't stabilized `count`, `ignore`, `index` and `length` are not being stabilized due to the lack of consensus. ## History * 2021-02-22, [RFC: Declarative macro metavariable expressions](rust-lang/rfcs#3086) * 2021-03-26, [Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions](rust-lang#83527) * 2022-02-01, [Implement macro meta-variable expressions](rust-lang#93545) * 2022-02-25, [[1/2] Implement macro meta-variable expressions](rust-lang#94368) * 2022-03-11, [[2/2] Implement macro meta-variable expressions](rust-lang#94833) * 2022-03-12, [Fix remaining meta-variable expression TODOs](rust-lang#94884) * 2019-03-21, [[macro-metavar-expr] Fix generated tokens hygiene](rust-lang#95188) * 2022-04-07, [Kickstart the inner usage of macro_metavar_expr](rust-lang#95761) * 2022-04-07, [[macro_metavar_expr] Add tests to ensure the feature requirement](rust-lang#95764) ## Non-stabilized expressions rust-lang#83527 lists several concerns about some characteristics of `count`, `index` and `length` that effectively make their stabilization unfeasible. `$$` and `ignore`, however, are not part of any discussion and thus are suitable for stabilization. It is not in the scope of this PR to detail each concern or suggest any possible converging solution. Such thing should be restrained in this tracking issue. ## Tests This list is a subset of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr * [Ensures that nested macros have correct behavior](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/dollar-dollar-has-correct-behavior.rs) * [Compares produced tokens to assert expected outputs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/feature-gate-macro_metavar_expr.rs) * [Checks the declarations of the feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/required-feature.rs) * [Verifies all possible errors that can occur due to incorrect user input](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/syntax-errors.rs) ## Possible future work Once consensus is achieved, other nightly expressions can be stabilized. Thanks `@markbt` for creating the RFC and thanks to `@petrochenkov` and `@mark-i-m` for reviewing the implementations.
…lett Stabilize `$$` in Rust 1.63.0 # Stabilization proposal This PR proposes the stabilization of a subset of `#![feature(macro_metavar_expr)]` or more specifically, the stabilization of dollar-dollar (`$$`). Tracking issue: rust-lang#83527 Version: 1.63 (2022-06-28 => beta, 2022-08-11 => stable). ## What is stabilized ```rust macro_rules! foo { () => { macro_rules! bar { ( $$( $$any:tt )* ) => { $$( $$any )* }; } }; } fn main() { foo!(); } ``` ## Motivation For more examples, see the [RFC](https://github.com/markbt/rfcs/blob/macro_metavar_expr/text/0000-macro-metavar-expr.md). Users must currently resort to a tricky and not so well-known hack to declare nested macros with repetitions. ```rust macro_rules! foo { ($dollar:tt) => { macro_rules! bar { ( $dollar ( $any:tt )* ) => { $dollar ( $any )* }; } }; } fn main() { foo!($); } ``` As seen above, such hack is fragile and makes work with declarative macros much more unpleasant. Dollar-dollar (`$$`), on the other hand, makes nested macros more intuitive. ## What isn't stabilized `count`, `ignore`, `index` and `length` are not being stabilized due to the lack of consensus. ## History * 2021-02-22, [RFC: Declarative macro metavariable expressions](rust-lang/rfcs#3086) * 2021-03-26, [Tracking Issue for RFC 3086: macro metavariable expressions](rust-lang#83527) * 2022-02-01, [Implement macro meta-variable expressions](rust-lang#93545) * 2022-02-25, [[1/2] Implement macro meta-variable expressions](rust-lang#94368) * 2022-03-11, [[2/2] Implement macro meta-variable expressions](rust-lang#94833) * 2022-03-12, [Fix remaining meta-variable expression TODOs](rust-lang#94884) * 2019-03-21, [[macro-metavar-expr] Fix generated tokens hygiene](rust-lang#95188) * 2022-04-07, [Kickstart the inner usage of macro_metavar_expr](rust-lang#95761) * 2022-04-07, [[macro_metavar_expr] Add tests to ensure the feature requirement](rust-lang#95764) ## Non-stabilized expressions rust-lang#83527 lists several concerns about some characteristics of `count`, `index` and `length` that effectively make their stabilization unfeasible. `$$` and `ignore`, however, are not part of any discussion and thus are suitable for stabilization. It is not in the scope of this PR to detail each concern or suggest any possible converging solution. Such thing should be restrained in this tracking issue. ## Tests This list is a subset of https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/tree/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr * [Ensures that nested macros have correct behavior](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/dollar-dollar-has-correct-behavior.rs) * [Compares produced tokens to assert expected outputs](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/feature-gate-macro_metavar_expr.rs) * [Checks the declarations of the feature](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/required-feature.rs) * [Verifies all possible errors that can occur due to incorrect user input](https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/blob/master/src/test/ui/macros/rfc-3086-metavar-expr/syntax-errors.rs) ## Possible future work Once consensus is achieved, other nightly expressions can be stabilized. Thanks ``@markbt`` for creating the RFC and thanks to ``@petrochenkov`` and ``@mark-i-m`` for reviewing the implementations.
Based on https://github.com/markbt/rust/tree/metavariable_expressions with some refactoring, additional tests, explicit feature declaration and minor documentation enhancement.
With this feature, declarative macros will be much more powerful and more flexible to work with.
Thank you very much @markbt for writing the RFC and for starting the implementation.
cc #83527
r? @petrochenkov