implement RFC amendment 1462 (add `[` to FOLLOW(ty))

[durka]

cc #31135 rust-lang/rfcs#1462 #30923 @retep998
r? @pnkfelix

[pnkfelix]

@bors r+ e1e0de8

[bors]

⌛️ Testing commit e1e0de8 with merge d5fcdcc...

[durka]

@pnkfelix so it is correct to modify FOLLOW(path) as well? I wasn't clear on that from the RFC.

[pnkfelix]

@durka oh wait, I overlooked that.

@bors r-

[pnkfelix]

(man that is embarrassing, given that its pretty explciitly pointed out...)

[pnkfelix]

( the RFC as written does says FOLLOW(path) = FOLLOW(ty); I need to double check whether that still makes sense in this context. it probably does, though, to be honest; I just need to double-check about the ramifications...)

[bors]

☀️ Test successful - auto-linux-32-nopt-t, auto-linux-32-opt, auto-linux-64-debug-opt, auto-linux-64-nopt-t, auto-linux-64-opt, auto-linux-64-x-android-t, auto-linux-cross-opt, auto-linux-musl-64-opt, auto-mac-32-opt, auto-mac-64-nopt-t, auto-mac-64-opt, auto-win-gnu-32-nopt-t, auto-win-gnu-32-opt, auto-win-gnu-64-nopt-t, auto-win-gnu-64-opt, auto-win-msvc-32-opt, auto-win-msvc-64-opt

[pnkfelix]

Actually thinking on it further, I can't see how it could be wrong to put [ into FOLLOW of path. We aren't going to add it to the grammar for path expressions. (Especially since it already has a role in expr grammar)

[pnkfelix]

@bors r+

[bors]

📌 Commit e1e0de8 has been approved by pnkfelix

[pnkfelix]

@bors r+ force

[bors]

📌 Commit e1e0de8 has been approved by pnkfelix

[pnkfelix]

@bors r+ e1e0de8

[bors]

⌛️ Testing commit e1e0de8 with merge 4086ba0...

[bors]

⛄️ The build was interrupted to prioritize another pull request.

[durka]

urgh, I forgot to update the Book.