The pretty-printers open and close "boxes" of text a lot. The open and
close operations must be matched. The matching is currently all implicit
and very easy to get wrong. (#140280 and #140246 are two recent
pretty-printing fixes that both involved unclosed boxes.)
This commit introduces `BoxMarker`, a marker type that represents an
open box. It makes box opening/closing explicit, which makes it much
easier to understand and harder to get wrong.
The commit also removes many comments are on `end` calls saying things
like "end outer head-block", "Close the outer-box". These demonstrate
how confusing the implicit approach was, but aren't necessary any more.
In the AST the "then" block is represented as a `Block`. In HIR the
"then" block is represented as an `Expr` that happens to always be.
`ExprKind::Block`. By deconstructing the `ExprKind::Block` to extract
the block within, things print properly.
For `issue-82392.rs`, note that we no longer print a type after the
"then" block. This is good, it now matches how we don't print a type for
the "else" block. (Well, we do print a type after the "else" block, but
it's for the whole if/else.)
Also tighten up some of the pattern matching -- these block expressions
within if/else will never have labels.
Indents for `cbox` and `ibox` are 0 or `INDENT_UNIT` (4) except for a
couple of places which are `INDENT_UNIT - 1` for no clear reason.
This commit changes the three space indents to four spaces.
In the AST, currently we use `BinOpKind` within `ExprKind::AssignOp` and
`AssocOp::AssignOp`, even though this allows some nonsensical
combinations. E.g. there is no `&&=` operator. Likewise for HIR and
THIR.
This commit introduces `AssignOpKind` which only includes the ten
assignable operators, and uses it in `ExprKind::AssignOp` and
`AssocOp::AssignOp`. (And does similar things for `hir::ExprKind` and
`thir::ExprKind`.) This avoids the possibility of nonsensical
combinations, as seen by the removal of the `bug!` case in
`lang_item_for_binop`.
The commit is mostly plumbing, including:
- Adds an `impl From<AssignOpKind> for BinOpKind` (AST) and `impl
From<AssignOp> for BinOp` (MIR/THIR).
- `BinOpCategory` can now be created from both `BinOpKind` and
`AssignOpKind`.
- Replaces the `IsAssign` type with `Op`, which has more information and
a few methods.
- `suggest_swapping_lhs_and_rhs`: moves the condition to the call site,
it's easier that way.
- `check_expr_inner`: had to factor out some code into a separate
method.
I'm on the fence about whether avoiding the nonsensical combinations is
worth the extra code.
It mirrors `ExprKind::Binary`, and contains a `BinOpKind`. This makes
`AssocOp` more like `ExprKind`. Note that the variants removed from
`AssocOp` are all named differently to `BinOpToken`, e.g. `Multiply`
instead of `Mul`, so that's an inconsistency removed.
The commit adds `precedence` and `fixity` methods to `BinOpKind`, and
calls them from the corresponding methods in `AssocOp`. This avoids the
need to create an `AssocOp` from a `BinOpKind` in a bunch of places, and
`AssocOp::from_ast_binop` is removed.
`AssocOp::to_ast_binop` is also no longer needed.
Overall things are shorter and nicer.
Skip parenthesis around tuple struct field calls
The pretty-printer previously did not distinguish between named vs unnamed fields when printing a function call containing a struct field. It would print the call as `(self.fun)()` for a named field which is correct, and `(self.0)()` for an unnamed field which is redundant.
This PR changes function calls of tuple struct fields to print without parens.
**Before:**
```rust
struct Tuple(fn());
fn main() {
let tuple = Tuple(|| {});
(tuple.0)();
}
```
**After:**
```rust
struct Tuple(fn());
fn main() {
let tuple = Tuple(|| {});
tuple.0();
}
```
Parenthesize break values containing leading label
The AST pretty printer previously produced invalid syntax in the case of `break` expressions with a value that begins with a loop or block label.
```rust
macro_rules! expr {
($e:expr) => {
$e
};
}
fn main() {
loop {
break expr!('a: loop { break 'a 1; } + 1);
};
}
```
`rustc -Zunpretty=expanded main.rs `:
```console
#![feature(prelude_import)]
#![no_std]
#[prelude_import]
use ::std::prelude::rust_2015::*;
#[macro_use]
extern crate std;
macro_rules! expr { ($e:expr) => { $e }; }
fn main() { loop { break 'a: loop { break 'a 1; } + 1; }; }
```
The expanded code is not valid Rust syntax. Printing invalid syntax is bad because it blocks `cargo expand` from being able to format the output as Rust syntax using rustfmt.
```console
error: parentheses are required around this expression to avoid confusion with a labeled break expression
--> <anon>:9:26
|
9 | fn main() { loop { break 'a: loop { break 'a 1; } + 1; }; }
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
help: wrap the expression in parentheses
|
9 | fn main() { loop { break ('a: loop { break 'a 1; }) + 1; }; }
| + +
```
This PR updates the AST pretty-printer to insert parentheses around the value of a `break` expression as required to avoid this edge case.
Fix parenthesization of subexprs containing statement boundary
This PR fixes a multitude of false negatives and false positives in the AST pretty printer's parenthesis insertion related to statement boundaries — statements which terminate unexpectedly early if there aren't parentheses.
Without this fix, the AST pretty printer (including both `stringify!` and `rustc -Zunpretty=expanded`) is prone to producing output which is not syntactically valid Rust. Invalid output is problematic because it means Rustfmt is unable to parse the output of `cargo expand`, for example, causing friction by forcing someone trying to debug a macro into reading poorly formatted code.
I believe the set of bugs fixed in this PR account for the most prevalent reason that `cargo expand` produces invalid output in real-world usage.
Fixes#98790.
## False negatives
The following is a correct program — `cargo check` succeeds.
```rust
macro_rules! m {
($e:expr) => {
match () { _ => $e }
};
}
fn main() {
m!({ 1 } - 1);
}
```
But `rustc -Zunpretty=expanded main.rs` produces output that is invalid Rust syntax, because parenthesization is needed and not being done by the pretty printer.
```rust
fn main() { match () { _ => { 1 } - 1, }; }
```
Piping this expanded code to rustfmt, it fails to parse.
```console
error: unexpected `,` in pattern
--> <stdin>:1:38
|
1 | fn main() { match () { _ => { 1 } - 1, }; }
| ^
|
help: try adding parentheses to match on a tuple...
|
1 | fn main() { match () { _ => { 1 } (- 1,) }; }
| + +
help: ...or a vertical bar to match on multiple alternatives
|
1 | fn main() { match () { _ => { 1 } - 1 | }; }
| ~~~~~
```
Fixed output after this PR:
```rust
fn main() { match () { _ => ({ 1 }) - 1, }; }
```
## False positives
Less problematic, but worth fixing (just like #118726).
```rust
fn main() {
let _ = match () { _ => 1 } - 1;
}
```
Output of `rustc -Zunpretty=expanded lib.rs` before this PR. There is no reason parentheses would need to be inserted there.
```rust
fn main() { let _ = (match () { _ => 1, }) - 1; }
```
After this PR:
```rust
fn main() { let _ = match () { _ => 1, } - 1; }
```
## Alternatives considered
In this PR I opted to parenthesize only the leading subexpression causing the statement boundary, rather than the entire statement. Example:
```rust
macro_rules! m {
($e:expr) => {
$e
};
}
fn main() {
m!(loop { break [1]; }[0] - 1);
}
```
This PR produces the following pretty-printed contents for fn main:
```rust
(loop { break [1]; })[0] - 1;
```
A different equally correct output would be:
```rust
(loop { break [1]; }[0] - 1);
```
I chose the one I did because it is the *only* approach used by handwritten code in the standard library and compiler. There are 4 places where parenthesization is being used to prevent a statement boundary, and in all 4, the developer has chosen to parenthesize the smallest subexpression rather than the whole statement:
b37d43efd9/compiler/rustc_codegen_cranelift/example/alloc_system.rs (L102)b37d43efd9/compiler/rustc_parse/src/errors.rs (L1021-L1029)b37d43efd9/library/core/src/future/poll_fn.rs (L151)b37d43efd9/library/core/src/ops/range.rs (L824-L828)
Introduce support for `async gen` blocks
I'm delighted to demonstrate that `async gen` block are not very difficult to support. They're simply coroutines that yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and return `()`.
**This PR is WIP and in draft mode for now** -- I'm mostly putting it up to show folks that it's possible. This PR needs a lang-team experiment associated with it or possible an RFC, since I don't think it falls under the jurisdiction of the `gen` RFC that was recently authored by oli (https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/3513, https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/117078).
### Technical note on the pre-generator-transform yield type:
The reason that the underlying coroutines yield `Poll<Option<T>>` and not `Poll<T>` (which would make more sense, IMO, for the pre-transformed coroutine), is because the `TransformVisitor` that is used to turn coroutines into built-in state machine functions would have to destructure and reconstruct the latter into the former, which requires at least inserting a new basic block (for a `switchInt` terminator, to match on the `Poll` discriminant).
This does mean that the desugaring (at the `rustc_ast_lowering` level) of `async gen` blocks is a bit more involved. However, since we already need to intercept both `.await` and `yield` operators, I don't consider it much of a technical burden.
r? `@ghost`
