macros: improve 1.0/2.0 interaction #46551
Merged
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
jseyfried
force-pushed
the
improve_legacy_modern_macro_interaction
branch
from
fb6fc6a
to
fc3dadb
Compare
jseyfried
commented
Dec 7, 2017
| @@ -95,7 +95,7 @@ impl FromStr for TokenStream { | |||
| // notify the expansion info that it is unhygienic | |||
| let mark = Mark::fresh(mark); | |||
| mark.set_expn_info(expn_info); | |||
| let span = call_site.with_ctxt(call_site.ctxt().apply_mark(mark)); | |||
| let span = call_site.with_ctxt(SyntaxContext::empty().apply_mark(mark)); | |||
kennytm
added
the
S-blocked
kennytm
added
S-waiting-on-review
jseyfried
force-pushed
the
improve_legacy_modern_macro_interaction
branch
2 times, most recently
from
fb04829
to
d6a8566
Compare
jseyfried
force-pushed
the
improve_legacy_modern_macro_interaction
branch
from
d6a8566
to
b766fa8
Compare
|
Review ping for you @nrc! |
|
ping @nrc, this may be ready for a look now! |
|
Review ping for you @nrc! |
|
@bors: r+ |
|
📌 Commit b766fa8 has been approved by |
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 12, 2018
…ion, r=nrc
macros: improve 1.0/2.0 interaction
This PR supports using unhygienic macros from hygienic macros without breaking the latter's hygiene.
```rust
// crate A:
#[macro_export]
macro_rules! m1 { () => {
f(); // unhygienic: this macro needs `f` in its environment
fn g() {} // (1) unhygienic: `g` is usable outside the macro definition
} }
// crate B:
#![feature(decl_macro)]
extern crate A;
use A::m1;
macro m2() {
fn f() {} // (2)
m1!(); // After this PR, `f()` in the expansion resolves to (2), not (3)
g(); // After this PR, this resolves to `fn g() {}` from the above expansion.
// Today, it is a resolution error.
}
fn test() {
fn f() {} // (3)
m2!(); // Today, `m2!()` can see (3) even though it should be hygienic.
fn g() {} // Today, this conflicts with `fn g() {}` from the expansion, even though it should be hygienic.
}
```
Once this PR lands, you can make an existing unhygienic macro hygienic by wrapping it in a hygienic macro. There is an [example](b766fa8) of this in the tests.
r? @nrc
|
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
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.
This PR supports using unhygienic macros from hygienic macros without breaking the latter's hygiene.
Once this PR lands, you can make an existing unhygienic macro hygienic by wrapping it in a hygienic macro. There is an example of this in the tests.
r? @nrc