Proper first and follow sets for macro_rules future proofing by pnkfelix · Pull Request #30694 · rust-lang/rust

pnkfelix · 2016-01-04T14:40:56Z

Proper first and follow sets for macro_rules future proofing

implements first stage of RFC amendment 1384; see #30450

rust-highfive · 2016-01-04T14:41:08Z

r? @nrc

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

pnkfelix · 2016-01-04T15:29:55Z

(hmm I thought this built locally, not sure why that .span_note invocation wasn't caught...)

nrc · 2016-01-04T19:15:04Z

do we need the [..] here?

nrc · 2016-01-04T19:33:48Z

r+ with a rebase and the nits addressed

pnkfelix · 2016-01-07T12:04:43Z

@bors r=nrc

bors · 2016-01-07T12:04:44Z

📌 Commit e51d537 has been approved by nrc

bors · 2016-01-07T13:38:30Z

⌛ Testing commit e51d537 with merge cc03014...

bors · 2016-01-07T14:22:48Z

💔 Test failed - auto-mac-64-opt

pnkfelix · 2016-01-07T16:16:39Z

(whoops, my local make check had too narrow a TESTNAME setting, mrrh...)

…s validity. See RFC amendment 1384 and tracking issue 30450: rust-lang/rfcs#1384 rust-lang#30450 Moved old check_matcher code into check_matcher_old combined the two checks to enable a warning cycle (where we will continue to error if the two checks agree to reject, accept if the new check says accept, and warn if the old check accepts but the new check rejects).

See RFC amendment 1384: rust-lang/rfcs#1384

run-pass test for some new functionality.

…ccordingly.

pnkfelix · 2016-01-07T19:54:11Z

(well, actually the test that is failing was added more recently than the base of my branch)

macro future proofing rules. (We may want to think about what this test was actually testing and figure out a way to test it without running afoul of macro future proofing. I spent some time trying to do this, e.g. by inserting parenthesis in the macro input pattern, but I could not quickly get it working, so I took this tack instead.)

pnkfelix · 2016-01-08T13:35:41Z

@bors r=nrc a2960bc

bors · 2016-01-11T02:24:25Z

⌛ Testing commit a2960bc with merge 8084616...

bors · 2016-01-11T02:33:17Z

💔 Test failed - auto-win-gnu-32-opt

alexcrichton · 2016-01-11T04:12:35Z

@bors: retry

On Mon, Jan 11, 2016 at 3:33 PM, bors notifications@github.com wrote:

[image: 💔] Test failed - auto-win-gnu-32-opt
http://buildbot.rust-lang.org/builders/auto-win-gnu-32-opt/builds/2644
—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#30694 (comment).

…low, r=nrc Proper first and follow sets for macro_rules future proofing implements first stage of RFC amendment 1384; see rust-lang#30450

- Successful merges: #30538, #30687, #30694, #30737, #30761, #30768, #30774, #30798, #30808, #30812, #30814 - Failed merges:

rust-highfive assigned nrc Jan 4, 2016

nrc reviewed Jan 4, 2016
View reviewed changes

Comment threadsrc/libsyntax/ext/tt/macro_rules.rs Outdated
nrcJan 4, 2016
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
do we need the [..] here?

pnkfelix force-pushed the issue-25658-real-first-follow branch from 9cedb30 to 1b9b3acCompare January 5, 2016 14:08

pnkfelix added 4 commits January 7, 2016 20:53

extending FOLLOW(NT) as specified in amendment.
3703ef5
See RFC amendment 1384: rust-lang/rfcs#1384

Updated future-proofing test, removed outdated test, and added
3e4b701
run-pass test for some new functionality.

After RFC amendment 1384, FOLLOW(pat) includes |, so update tests a…
c032e0c
…ccordingly.

pnkfelix force-pushed the issue-25658-real-first-follow branch from e51d537 to a2960bcCompare January 7, 2016 23:36

nagisa mentioned this pull request Jan 11, 2016
Rollup of 11 pull requests #30826
Merged

bors added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 11, 2016
Auto merge of#30826- nagisa:rollup, r=nagisa
4405944
- Successful merges: #30538, #30687, #30694, #30737, #30761, #30768, #30774, #30798, #30808, #30812, #30814 - Failed merges:

bors merged commit a2960bc into rust-lang:masterJan 12, 2016

Uh oh!

Uh oh!

Conversation

pnkfelix commented Jan 4, 2016

Uh oh!

rust-highfive commented Jan 4, 2016

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Jan 4, 2016

Uh oh!

nrcJan 4, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Uh oh!

nrc commented Jan 4, 2016

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Jan 7, 2016

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 7, 2016

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 7, 2016

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 7, 2016

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Jan 7, 2016

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Jan 7, 2016

Uh oh!

pnkfelix commented Jan 8, 2016

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 11, 2016

Uh oh!

bors commented Jan 11, 2016

Uh oh!

alexcrichton commented Jan 11, 2016

Uh oh!

Reviewers

Assignees

Labels

Projects

Milestone

Development

Uh oh!

5 participants