[Rust] Support macro repetitions inside structs #3912
Draft
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
This only addresses a specific case of macro repetitions inside the struct body and similar changes to other statements with body blocks are likely also necessary, but I'm keeping the change to a limited in order to observe its effects first. Further reports of such issues can be handled analogously.
|
The other reason I didn't do it for other block statements is that I didn't have any (valid) examples at hand to verify with and I'm not comfortable enough with macros to craft them ad-hoc. |
`const` and function definitions are not valid inside structs. `impl` was probably meant here.
|
This doesn't handle macros like |
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This only addresses a specific case of macro repetitions inside the struct body and similar changes to other statements with body blocks are likely also necessary, but I'm keeping the change to a limited scope in order to observe its effects first. Further reports of such issues can be handled analogously.
Closes #3904.