Update macro_use to use the attribute template
#1886
Conversation
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
traviscross
force-pushed
the
macro_use
branch
from
16b3c45 to
c4fff54
Compare
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
traviscross
force-pushed
the
macro_use
branch
from
874ab7a to
e594bec
Compare
github-merge-queue
bot
removed this pull request from the merge queue due to a conflict with the base branch
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
More closely align with the template, and some minor word tweaks.
|
This PR was rebased onto a different master commit. Here's a range-diff highlighting what actually changed. Rebasing is a normal part of keeping PRs up to date, so no action is needed—this note is just to help reviewers. |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
| ```rust,ignore | ||
| #[macro_use(lazy_static)] // Or #[macro_use] to import all macros. | ||
| extern crate lazy_static; | ||
| Macros imported this way are imported into the [`macro_use` prelude], not textually, which means that they can be shadowed by any other name. While macros imported by `macro_use` can be used before the import statement, in case of a conflict, the last macro imported wins. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's unfortunate that we document that the last macro wins.
I always wanted to rework this into the standard order-independent scheme with "glob imports" (#[macro_use]), "single imports" shadowing glob imports (#[macro_use(single)]), and glob-vs-glob conflicts reported on use.
We should be able to do in practice, I think, so it would be good to leave unspecified what happens in case of conflicts.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there a good issue to cite for this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
4 participants
New rules:
macro.decl.scope.macro_use.intromacro.decl.scope.macro_use.syntaxmacro.decl.scope.macro_use.allowed-positionsmacro.decl.scope.macro_use.duplicates