Skip to content
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

Miscellaneous cleanup/refactoring in resolve and syntax::ext #38171

Closed
wants to merge 0 commits into from

Conversation

jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor

r? @nrc

@@ -475,8 +475,6 @@ pub struct MacroDef {
pub attrs: HirVec<Attribute>,
pub id: NodeId,
pub span: Span,
pub imported_from: Option<Name>,
Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This was always None due to #37213.

@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the cleanup branch 4 times, most recently from e8a6dfa to 63cfb39 Compare December 12, 2016 10:27
@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the cleanup branch 2 times, most recently from 1331be9 to 33e2ea3 Compare December 14, 2016 05:42
@@ -160,7 +155,13 @@ pub struct PathSegment {
/// this is more than just simple syntactic sugar; the use of
/// parens affects the region binding rules, so we preserve the
/// distinction.
pub parameters: PathParameters,
pub parameters: Option<P<PathParameters>>,
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Does this introduce distinction between segment and segment::<> or is it purely a size optimization?

Copy link
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I amended so that it is purely a size optimization.

Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could you add a comment telling that this is a size optimization and what None means?

Copy link
Contributor Author

@jseyfried jseyfried Dec 15, 2016

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Done.

@jseyfried jseyfried force-pushed the cleanup branch 2 times, most recently from eaff87f to 6d7f6e5 Compare December 18, 2016 07:00
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 18, 2016

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #38369) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@nrc
Copy link
Member

nrc commented Dec 19, 2016

r=me with the comment @petrochenkov requested

@jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor Author

@bors r=nrc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 19, 2016

📌 Commit f705c69 has been approved by nrc

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 20, 2016

⌛ Testing commit f705c69 with merge 5a825c8...

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 20, 2016

💔 Test failed - auto-win-msvc-64-opt

@alexcrichton
Copy link
Member

alexcrichton commented Dec 20, 2016 via email

alexcrichton added a commit to alexcrichton/rust that referenced this pull request Dec 20, 2016
Miscellaneous cleanup/refactoring in `resolve` and `syntax::ext`

r? @nrc
@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors commented Dec 20, 2016

☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #38271) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts.

@jseyfried
Copy link
Contributor Author

This merged in #38499.

@jseyfried jseyfried closed this Dec 21, 2016
@jseyfried jseyfried deleted the cleanup branch December 21, 2016 04:33
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants