-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 530
Document let_chains
again
#1740
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
Open
est31
wants to merge
3
commits into
rust-lang:master
Choose a base branch
from
est31:let_chains
base: master
Could not load branches
Branch not found: {{ refName }}
Loading
Could not load tags
Nothing to show
Loading
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Some commits from the old base branch may be removed from the timeline,
and old review comments may become outdated.
Open
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
3 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
This can't be right, e.g. (considering only parsing):
That is, the exception isn't just
LazyBooleanExpression
; it's any boolean expression with a lower precedence than&&
.We're also asking, I think, for something kind of magic to happen here. When we have,
we're hoping for
Expression
to betrue == false
. But when we have,we're hoping for
Expression
to try to betrue || false && let () = ()
, notice that's impossible, and fail (i.e., rather than allowingExpression
to betrue || false
, which would be wrong). But this isn't really encoded anywhere.Ideas?
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.
You are right that the exception isn't just that, and maybe it's misleading to list only
LazyBooleanExpression
because people might think that's an exhaustive list of exceptions.From what I can see, the reference doesn't require the grammar to be "precedence fitting", i.e. only allow what's possible to express in text form following precedence rules. Instead, it puts the precedence into a table and assumes the grammar is parsed according to the precedence. I would say that table also applies here, as it's part of the larger "expression" family of things.
Because people might think it's exhaustive, we could maybe remove the exception altogether and replace it with a note instead?
||
has weaker precedence, so there isn't a top level && chain any more. On the other hand,==
has stronger precedence.The example with
||
is parsed to sth like:The example with
==
is parsed like:So in the
||
example, the BinOp with&&
is actually not top level, its arms can't beIfCondition
s. So its arms don't have a "permit to let". While in the==
example, it has such a permission.So I think this property is emergent from the grammar and the fact that it is parsed according to precedence.