Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
resolve: Some refactorings in preparation for uniform paths 2.0 - #54336
Conversation
petrochenkov
commented
Sep 18, 2018
r? @eddyb |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd almost want this to be named Scope and to replace some of the other infrastructure, like ModuleOrUniformRoot. But we can leave it like this for now.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yeah, there's still a lot of place for refactoring, e.g. I want to merge this early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope with resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope eventually as well.
eddyb
commented
Sep 19, 2018
LGTM overall. This seems to also include a different PR? (the "after derive" bit) |
petrochenkov
commented
Sep 19, 2018
The "after derive" (or rather "test/bench") bit is included because it was a temporary restriction for beta, but now it can be removed due to one of the previous commits from this PR (1892126), so it's kinda logically related. |
petrochenkov
commented
Sep 21, 2018
r? @alexcrichton who reviewed the previous related PRs |
alexcrichton
commented
Sep 24, 2018
@bors: r+ |
bors
commented
Sep 24, 2018
📌 Commit 28f4b6df2e303b893d4f411c44d8203e21e7890f has been approved by |
bors
commented
Sep 24, 2018
🔒 Merge conflict This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again. How do I rebase?Assuming
You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial. Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Error message |
bors
commented
Sep 26, 2018
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #54575) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
petrochenkov
commented
Sep 26, 2018
@bors r=alexcrichton |
bors
commented
Sep 26, 2018
📌 Commit 0f34a51fb4f9d83f0c0264479448dddd8062265e has been approved by |
bors
commented
Sep 26, 2018
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #53824) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
petrochenkov
commented
Sep 27, 2018
Blocked on #54605 (which will become un-backportable if this PR is landed first). |
petrochenkov
commented
Oct 4, 2018
@bors r=alexcrichton |
bors
commented
Oct 4, 2018
📌 Commit b6a366e116511712930d5261ad8c4449e2bf481c has been approved by |
bors
commented
Oct 4, 2018
🔒 Merge conflict This pull request and the master branch diverged in a way that cannot be automatically merged. Please rebase on top of the latest master branch, and let the reviewer approve again. How do I rebase?Assuming
You may also read Git Rebasing to Resolve Conflicts by Drew Blessing for a short tutorial. Please avoid the "Resolve conflicts" button on GitHub. It uses Sometimes step 4 will complete without asking for resolution. This is usually due to difference between how Error message |
…ual left-to-right order
…scope resolution function `fn resolve_legacy_scope`/`fn resolve_lexical_macro_path_segment` -> `fn early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope`
`NameBinding`s instead of `Def`s
The restrictions were introduced in rust-lang#54277 and no longer necessary now because legacy plugins are now expanded in usual left-to-right order
petrochenkov
commented
Oct 5, 2018
@bors r=alexcrichton |
bors
commented
Oct 5, 2018
📌 Commit 0d8e9cd has been approved by |
bors
commented
Oct 5, 2018
resolve: Some refactorings in preparation for uniform paths 2.0 The main result is that in-scope resolution performed during macro expansion / import resolution is now consolidated in a single function (`fn early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope`), which can now be used for resolving first import segments as well when uniform paths are enabled. r? @ghost
bors
commented
Oct 5, 2018
☀️ Test successful - status-appveyor, status-travis |
The main result is that in-scope resolution performed during macro expansion / import resolution is now consolidated in a single function (
fn early_resolve_ident_in_lexical_scope), which can now be used for resolving first import segments as well when uniform paths are enabled.r? @ghost