-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 4
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
Remove need for use_attr
and use_proc
#5
Merged
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
Show all changes
6 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
a31c6a8
working implementation no doc
gui1117 a9e9d31
cargo fmt
gui1117 a74ffeb
more precise comments
gui1117 b1acdf4
Merge remote-tracking branch 'origin/main' into gui-recursive
gui1117 cf6d754
unused args
gui1117 469937b
typo
gui1117 File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@sam0x17 what I wrote here looks a bit abusive to me, but as long as we use the extra token stuff only for attribute macros we are good.
but maybe it should be refactored together with extra token feature.
otherwise we could have
forward_tokens_to_attribute_macro
andforward_tokens_to_proc_macro
.the implementation would redirect to
forward_tokens_inner(attr: true, ...)
andforward_tokens_inner(attr: false, ...)
. and then same forforward_tokens_internal
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Yeah also if I remember correctly the main blocker to having a more general thing like a
tt
here is anything but anident
or a literal limits what types of position you can use forward_tokens stuff with because of how decl macros work. This is the same reason I have to do that crazy manual interpolation of idents with :: instead of just a path in the export tokens macro. Extra as a string works in all positions.Maybe a tuple like this would be better though:
I don't think that would mess up the position capabilities at all, and at least then we wouldn't have to do string interpolation and escaping
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But yes I think it is fine to expand to a proc macro here, and I'd be happy to merge it this way