Give Names to positional fields and merge them with named fields
#31937
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
| @@ -197,8 +195,8 @@ fn build_struct(cx: &DocContext, tcx: &ty::ctxt, did: DefId) -> clean::Struct { | |||
| clean::Struct { | |||
| struct_type: match &*variant.fields { | |||
| [] => doctree::Unit, | |||
| [ref f] if f.name == unnamed_field.name => doctree::Newtype, | |||
| [ref f, ..] if f.name == unnamed_field.name => doctree::Tuple, | |||
| [_] if variant.kind == ty::VariantKind::Tuple => doctree::Newtype, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I wonder if this even matters anymore.
|
LGTM, but maybe @nrc or @Manishearth have more to say? If not, I'll r+ this later. |
|
I don't think the AST should be touched at all in this case; from a syntax extension perspective having positional fields separated is helpful; and it's not harming much. As far as reusing machinery is concerned, |
|
actual change lgtm |
|
Does this fix #27340? |
Indeed, it does. I've added a test for it. |
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #32001) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
|
Rebased. |
|
@bors r+ |
|
📌 Commit bc93fbc has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Mar 2, 2016
The names are "0", "1", "2" etc, the same as used in field access. This generally make things simpler and potentially allows to reuse braced struct machinery (struct patterns, struct expressions) for tuple structs. I haven't touched the AST for stability reasons, but I intend to do it later. r? @eddyb
Manishearth
added a commit
to Manishearth/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Apr 6, 2016
The AST part of rust-lang#31937 Unlike HIR, AST still uses `Option` for field names because parser can't know field indexes reliably due to constructions like ``` struct S(#[cfg(false)] u8, u8); // The index of the second field changes from 1 during parsing to 0 after expansion. ``` and I wouldn't like to put the burden of renaming fields on expansion passes and syntax extensions. plugin-[breaking-change] cc rust-lang#31645 r? @Manishearth
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
The names are "0", "1", "2" etc, the same as used in field access.
This generally make things simpler and potentially allows to reuse braced struct machinery (struct patterns, struct expressions) for tuple structs.
I haven't touched the AST for stability reasons, but I intend to do it later.
r? @eddyb