Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

rustdoc: glue tokens before highlighting #73807

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 16, 2020

Conversation

euclio
Copy link
Contributor

@euclio euclio commented Jun 27, 2020

Fixes #72684.

This commit also modifies the signature of Classifier::new to avoid
copying the source being highlighted.

@rust-highfive
Copy link
Collaborator

r? @ollie27

(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override)

@rust-highfive rust-highfive added the S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. label Jun 27, 2020
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 14, 2020

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #74330) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

Fixes rust-lang#72684.

This commit also modifies the signature of `Classifier::new` to avoid
copying the source being highlighted.
@ollie27
Copy link
Member

ollie27 commented Jul 15, 2020

Sorry for the delay.

Unfortunately this doesn't completely fix the issue. There are cases where tokens shouldn't be glued together for example:

Before this PR:

image

After this PR:

image

I'm tempted to say we should merge this anyway unless there's an easy way to fix the above because in most cases this is an improvement. @GuillaumeGomez what do you think?

@euclio
Copy link
Contributor Author

euclio commented Jul 15, 2020

Yes, not ideal, but I believe that was the status-quo before && was broken. Fixing it would require bringing in the full parser which would be overkill IMO.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Not great if it introduces some regressions but it is an improvement, indeed. Can you open an issue about it, explaining a bit the situation and everything please? Once done, r=ollie27 and me

@euclio
Copy link
Contributor Author

euclio commented Jul 15, 2020

@GuillaumeGomez To clarify, this PR doesn't introduce any regressions. 1.38.0 (the last release where && was highlighted properly) also did not highlight &&&str correctly.

Screen Shot 2020-07-15 at 3 31 36 PM

Writing a triple reference is rare enough that I think this is acceptable.

@GuillaumeGomez
Copy link
Member

Oh I see, I thought you were talking about the documentation, not the source code pages. Then it's all improvements! :D

@ollie27
Copy link
Member

ollie27 commented Jul 16, 2020

I didn't realize that that bug was present in the past, in which case I agree that this is fine.

@bors r=ollie27,GuillaumeGomez

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Jul 16, 2020

📌 Commit c3ee75d has been approved by ollie27,GuillaumeGomez

@bors bors added S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion. and removed S-waiting-on-review Status: Awaiting review from the assignee but also interested parties. labels Jul 16, 2020
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2020
…e27,GuillaumeGomez

rustdoc: glue tokens before highlighting

Fixes rust-lang#72684.

This commit also modifies the signature of `Classifier::new` to avoid
copying the source being highlighted.
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2020
…e27,GuillaumeGomez

rustdoc: glue tokens before highlighting

Fixes rust-lang#72684.

This commit also modifies the signature of `Classifier::new` to avoid
copying the source being highlighted.
Manishearth added a commit to Manishearth/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2020
…e27,GuillaumeGomez

rustdoc: glue tokens before highlighting

Fixes rust-lang#72684.

This commit also modifies the signature of `Classifier::new` to avoid
copying the source being highlighted.
bors added a commit to rust-lang-ci/rust that referenced this pull request Jul 16, 2020
…arth

Rollup of 21 pull requests

Successful merges:

 - rust-lang#73566 (Don't run `everybody_loops` for rustdoc; instead ignore resolution errors)
 - rust-lang#73771 (Don't pollute docs/suggestions with libstd deps)
 - rust-lang#73794 (Small cleanup for E0705 explanation)
 - rust-lang#73807 (rustdoc: glue tokens before highlighting)
 - rust-lang#73835 (Clean up E0710 explanation)
 - rust-lang#73926 (Ignoring test case: [codegen] repr-transparent-aggregates-1.rs for aarch64)
 - rust-lang#73981 (Remove some `ignore-stage1` annotations.)
 - rust-lang#73998 (add regression test for rust-lang#61216)
 - rust-lang#74140 (Make hir ProjectionKind more precise)
 - rust-lang#74148 (Move #[doc(alias)] check in rustc)
 - rust-lang#74159 (forbid generic params in the type of const params)
 - rust-lang#74171 (Fix 44056 test with debug on macos.)
 - rust-lang#74221 (Don't panic if the lhs of a div by zero is not statically known)
 - rust-lang#74325 (Focus on the current file in the source file sidebar)
 - rust-lang#74359 (rustdoc: Rename internal API fns to `into_string`)
 - rust-lang#74370 (Reintroduce spotlight / "important traits" feature)
 - rust-lang#74390 (Fix typo in std::mem::transmute documentation)
 - rust-lang#74391 (BtreeMap: superficially refactor root access)
 - rust-lang#74392 (const generics triage)
 - rust-lang#74397 (Fix typo in the latest release note)
 - rust-lang#74406 (Set shell for github actions CI)

Failed merges:

r? @ghost
@bors bors merged commit b700835 into rust-lang:master Jul 16, 2020
@euclio euclio deleted the rustdoc-highlighting branch July 17, 2020 00:04
@cuviper cuviper added this to the 1.47.0 milestone May 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
S-waiting-on-bors Status: Waiting on bors to run and complete tests. Bors will change the label on completion.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

rustdoc doesn't highlight "&&" properly
6 participants