Make `ExprKind::Closure` a struct variant.
Simple refactor since we both need it to introduce additional fields in `ExprKind::Closure`.
r? ``@Aaron1011``
Remove label/lifetime shadowing warnings
This PR removes some pre-1.0 shadowing warnings for labels and lifetimes.
The current behaviour of the compiler is to warn
* labels that shadow unrelated labels in the same function --> removed
```rust
'a: loop {}
'a: loop {} // STOP WARNING
```
* labels that shadow enclosing labels --> kept, but only if shadowing is hygienic
```rust
'a: loop {
'a: loop {} // KEEP WARNING
}
```
* labels that shadow lifetime --> removed
```rust
fn foo<'a>() {
'a: loop {} // STOP WARNING
}
```
* lifetimes that shadow labels --> removed
```rust
'a: loop {
let b = Box::new(|x: &i8| *x) as Box<dyn for <'a> Fn(&'a i8) -> i8>; // STOP WARNING
}
```
* lifetimes that shadow lifetimes --> kept
```rust
fn foo<'a>() {
let b = Box::new(|x: &i8| *x) as Box<dyn for <'a> Fn(&'a i8) -> i8>; // KEEP WARNING
}
```
Closes https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/31745.
-----
From `@petrochenkov` in https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/95781#issuecomment-1105199014
> I think we should remove these silly checks entirely.
> They were introduced long time ago in case some new language features appear and require this space.
> Now we have another mechanism for such language changes - editions, and if "lifetimes in expressions" or something like that needs to be introduced it could be introduced as an edition change.
> However, there was no plans to introduce anything like for years, so it's unlikely that even the edition mechanism will be necessary.
r? rust-lang/lang
This commit adds an alternative content boxing syntax,
and uses it inside alloc.
The usage inside the very performance relevant code in
liballoc is the only remaining relevant usage of box syntax
in the compiler (outside of tests, which are comparatively
easy to port).
box syntax was originally designed to be used by all Rust
developers. This introduces a replacement syntax more tailored
to only being used inside the Rust compiler, and with it,
lays the groundwork for eventually removing box syntax.
Track if a where bound comes from a impl Trait desugar
With https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/93803 `impl Trait` function arguments get desugared to hidden where bounds. However, Clippy needs to know if a bound was originally a `impl Trait` or an actual bound. This adds a field to the `WhereBoundPredicate` struct to keep track of this information during AST->HIR lowering.
r? `@cjgillot`
cc `@estebank` (as the reviewer of #93803)
With #93803 `impl Trait` function arguments get desugared to hidden
where bounds. However, Clippy needs to know if a bound was originally a
impl Trait or an actual bound. This adds a field to the
`WhereBoundPredicate` struct to keep track of this information during
HIR lowering.
Begin fixing all the broken doctests in `compiler/`
Begins to fix#95994.
All of them pass now but 24 of them I've marked with `ignore HELP (<explanation>)` (asking for help) as I'm unsure how to get them to work / if we should leave them as they are.
There are also a few that I marked `ignore` that could maybe be made to work but seem less important.
Each `ignore` has a rough "reason" for ignoring after it parentheses, with
- `(pseudo-rust)` meaning "mostly rust-like but contains foreign syntax"
- `(illustrative)` a somewhat catchall for either a fragment of rust that doesn't stand on its own (like a lone type), or abbreviated rust with ellipses and undeclared types that would get too cluttered if made compile-worthy.
- `(not-rust)` stuff that isn't rust but benefits from the syntax highlighting, like MIR.
- `(internal)` uses `rustc_*` code which would be difficult to make work with the testing setup.
Those reason notes are a bit inconsistently applied and messy though. If that's important I can go through them again and try a more principled approach. When I run `rg '```ignore \(' .` on the repo, there look to be lots of different conventions other people have used for this sort of thing. I could try unifying them all if that would be helpful.
I'm not sure if there was a better existing way to do this but I wrote my own script to help me run all the doctests and wade through the output. If that would be useful to anyone else, I put it here: https://github.com/Elliot-Roberts/rust_doctest_fixing_tool
Overhaul `MacArgs`
Motivation:
- Clarify some code that I found hard to understand.
- Eliminate one use of three places where `TokenKind::Interpolated` values are created.
r? `@petrochenkov`
The value in `MacArgs::Eq` is currently represented as a `Token`.
Because of `TokenKind::Interpolated`, `Token` can be either a token or
an arbitrary AST fragment. In practice, a `MacArgs::Eq` starts out as a
literal or macro call AST fragment, and then is later lowered to a
literal token. But this is very non-obvious. `Token` is a much more
general type than what is needed.
This commit restricts things, by introducing a new type `MacArgsEqKind`
that is either an AST expression (pre-lowering) or an AST literal
(post-lowering). The downside is that the code is a bit more verbose in
a few places. The benefit is that makes it much clearer what the
possibilities are (though also shorter in some other places). Also, it
removes one use of `TokenKind::Interpolated`, taking us a step closer to
removing that variant, which will let us make `Token` impl `Copy` and
remove many "handle Interpolated" code paths in the parser.
Things to note:
- Error messages have improved. Messages like this:
```
unexpected token: `"bug" + "found"`
```
now say "unexpected expression", which makes more sense. Although
arbitrary expressions can exist within tokens thanks to
`TokenKind::Interpolated`, that's not obvious to anyone who doesn't
know compiler internals.
- In `parse_mac_args_common`, we no longer need to collect tokens for
the value expression.
