fix: parsing of ? opt-out trait bounds
#12444
Conversation
| } else if p.at(T![for]) { | ||
| // test question_for_type_trait_bound | ||
| // fn f<T>() where T: ?for<> Sized {} | ||
| types::for_type(p, false); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Hmm, this also allows fn f<T>() where T: ~const for<> Sized {}.
One question: does our parser need to be 100% equivalent to rustc's? Or do we just need to make sure that those that can be parsed by rustc can be parsed by ra. For those syntaxes that can be parsed by ra but not by rustc, flycheck should be able to help us diagnose
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We want to be as independent from flycheck as possible so we should reject this ideally yes, given that ~const is unstable atm I don't think this would be too bad, but I also don't think doing it proper here should be too difficult
|
@Veykril Now I think the side effects have been eliminated but some duplicate code was introduced, if there is a better way to do this, please let me know. |
| T![?] => { | ||
| p.bump_any(); | ||
| if p.at(T![for]) { | ||
| // test question_for_type_trait_bound | ||
| // fn f<T>() where T: ?for<> Sized {} | ||
| types::for_type(p, false) | ||
| } else if paths::is_use_path_start(p) { | ||
| types::path_type_(p, false); | ||
| } else { | ||
| m.abandon(p); | ||
| return false; | ||
| } | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We could do the following here
| T![?] => { | |
| p.bump_any(); | |
| if p.at(T![for]) { | |
| // test question_for_type_trait_bound | |
| // fn f<T>() where T: ?for<> Sized {} | |
| types::for_type(p, false) | |
| } else if paths::is_use_path_start(p) { | |
| types::path_type_(p, false); | |
| } else { | |
| m.abandon(p); | |
| return false; | |
| } | |
| } | |
| // test question_for_type_trait_bound | |
| // fn f<T>() where T: ?for<> Sized {} | |
| T![?] if p.nth_at(1, T![for]) => { | |
| p.bump_any(); | |
| types::for_type(p, false) | |
| } |
and keep the T![?] match arm on line 138 as is I think
thanks to Veykril
|
Thanks! |
|
📌 Commit df67bbd has been approved by |
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
fixes #12442