This removes all but 6 uses of `drop {}` from the entire codebase. Removing any of the remaining uses causes various non-trivial bugs; I'll start reporting them once this gets merged.
Major changes are:
- replace ~[ty_param] with Generics structure, which includes
both OptVec<TyParam> and OptVec<Lifetime>;
- the use of syntax::opt_vec to avoid allocation for empty lists;
cc #4846
r? @graydon
Major changes are:
- replace ~[ty_param] with Generics structure, which includes
both OptVec<TyParam> and OptVec<Lifetime>;
- the use of syntax::opt_vec to avoid allocation for empty lists;
cc #4846
r?
After this patch, macros declared in a module, function, or block can only be used inside of that module, function or block, with the exception of modules declared with the #[macro_escape] attribute; these modules allow macros to escape, and can be used as a limited macro export mechanism.
This pull request also includes miscellaneous comments, lots of new test cases, a few renamings, and a few as-yet-unused data definitions for hygiene.
Macro scope is now delimited by function, block, and module boundaries,
except for modules that are marked with #[macro_escape], which allows
macros to escape.
It appears that using deriving_eq/auto_encode on ASTs bumps up against the "gee this looks like infinite unfolding" limit of 10 in monomorphization. Increasing it to 30 seems to solve this problem for me....
Also, commenting and a few renames.
This patch series is doing a couple things with the ultimate goal of removing `#[allow(vecs_implicitly_copyable)]`, although I'm not quite there yet. The main change is passing around `@~str`s in most places, and using `ref`s in others. As far as I could tell, there are no performance changes with these patches, and all the tests pass on my mac.
r? @graydon - This is for greater uniformity (for example, macros that generate
tuples). rustc already supported 1-tuple patterns, but there was no
way to construct a 1-tuple term.
@graydon , as far as your comment on #4898 - it did turn out to be solvable inside the macro (since @luqmana already fixed it using structs instead), but I still think it's a good idea to allow 1-tuples, for uniformity. I don't think anyone is likely to trip over it, and I'm not too worried that it changes the amount of ambiguity.
Niko Matsakis