Token cleanups #116649
Merged
Token cleanups #116649
Conversation
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
For consistency with `proc_macro::Punct`.
Explaining something in the output that surprised me.
And reorder the arguments. I find it easier to think about this way.
rustbot
added
S-waiting-on-review
| @@ -404,7 +404,7 @@ impl Token { | |||
| [DotDot, DotDotDot, DotDotEq].contains(&self.kind) | |||
| } | |||
|
|
|||
| pub fn is_op(&self) -> bool { | |||
| pub fn is_punct(&self) -> bool { | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Punct in proc macros is about punctuation characters (single-character), but op here is about operators (possibly multi-character, like +=).
But I'm also not sure how right is to call e.g. # an operator.
So renaming this is probably fine.
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 12, 2023
…sors, r=petrochenkov Token cleanups Some precursors to rust-lang#114571 that are worth merging even if the main part of rust-lang#114571 doesn't get merged. r? `@petrochenkov`
|
💔 Test failed - checks-actions |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-review
|
@bors retry |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
Merged
|
Finished benchmarking commit (19149d1): comparison URL. Overall result: no relevant changes - no action needed@rustbot label: -perf-regression Instruction countThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Max RSS (memory usage)ResultsThis is a less reliable metric that may be of interest but was not used to determine the overall result at the top of this comment.
CyclesThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Binary sizeThis benchmark run did not return any relevant results for this metric. Bootstrap: 627.587s -> 628.214s (0.10%) |
bors-ferrocene bot
added a commit
to ferrocene/ferrocene
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 13, 2023
50: Automated pull from upstream `master` r=Dajamante a=github-actions[bot] This PR pulls the following changes from the upstream repository: * rust-lang/rust#116619 * rust-lang/rust#115964 * rust-lang/rust#116391 * rust-lang/rust#116510 * rust-lang/rust#116671 * rust-lang/rust#116669 * rust-lang/rust#116654 * rust-lang/rust#116642 * rust-lang/rust#116625 * rust-lang/rust#116593 * rust-lang/rust#116649 * rust-lang/rust#116600 * rust-lang/rust#116628 Co-authored-by: Nadrieril <nadrieril+git@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Scott McMurray <scottmcm@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: bjorn3 <17426603+bjorn3@users.noreply.github.com> Co-authored-by: Nicholas Nethercote <n.nethercote@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: Trevor Gross <tmgross@umich.edu> Co-authored-by: Georg Semmler <github@weiznich.de> Co-authored-by: Guillaume Gomez <guillaume.gomez@huawei.com> Co-authored-by: Gurinder Singh <frederick.the.fool@gmail.com> Co-authored-by: bors <bors@rust-lang.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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.
Some precursors to #114571 that are worth merging even if the main part of #114571 doesn't get merged.
r? @petrochenkov