-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 12.8k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Fragment specifiers in macro are not taken into account #35650
Comments
Yeah, macros don't do backtracking. You'll need to adjust the matchers to provide some other way to disambiguate. |
Yes, I obviously know that I could just put brackets or whatever around one of the patterns to make it distinct. But the whole point of having fragment qualifiers is precisely to distinguish between two otherwise identical patterns. If macros cannot do it although they have the perfect tool for it, then they are stupid and ought to be improved. |
It wasn't obvious to me that you knew the workaround -- sorry for assuming! Also see #33840. |
Thanks for pointing the PR. It is blocked for now, but I suppose there is still hope. Sorry for being harsh. I have been raging for months over how annoyingly limited and stupid Rust macros are, and I finally found a case general and obvious enough to justify my complaining… |
triage: Macros still don't backtrack. I can't find an issue for that, though I do suspect that one exists in some form. Labeling as A-macros, though. |
@Mark-Simulacrum here is one (closed). |
Closing in favor of #42838 -- macro rules do not backtrack. |
Fixes rust-lang#24189. Fixes rust-lang#26444. Fixes rust-lang#27832. Fixes rust-lang#34030. Fixes rust-lang#35650. Fixes rust-lang#39964. Fixes the 4th comment in rust-lang#40569. Fixes the issue blocking rust-lang#40984.
…seyfried Only match a fragment specifier the if it starts with certain tokens. When trying to match a fragment specifier, we first predict whether the current token can be matched at all. If it cannot be matched, don't bother to push the Earley item to `bb_eis`. This can fix a lot of issues which otherwise requires full backtracking (#42838). In this PR the prediction treatment is not done for `:item`, `:stmt` and `:tt`, but it could be expanded in the future. Fixes #24189. Fixes #26444. Fixes #27832. Fixes #34030. Fixes #35650. Fixes #39964. Fixes the 4th comment in #40569. Fixes the issue blocking #40984.
Here is a minimum example of the problem.
Compilation fails with following error.
Which means that the fragment qualifier is not taken into account to choose which variant of the macro is to be used.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: