fix issue-144595#155375
Closed
bb1yd wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
This comment has been minimized.
This comment has been minimized.
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Contributor
Author
|
r? compiler |
Contributor
Author
|
@rustbot ready |
This comment was marked as outdated.
This comment was marked as outdated.
Collaborator
|
The parser was modified, potentially altering the grammar of (stable) Rust cc @fmease |
Contributor
Author
|
too messy new PR:#156545 |
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
relevant issue:#144595
I implement this issue by simply find every colon in the tuple struct.
This method has a problem that it might mislead the user when the user type something like
struct Foo(std::string:String);(accidentally type :: as :). The compiler will print:I'm not sure if this is acceptable. Maybe a better way is to parse the field as a record struct field again.