Skip to content

Fix handling of where clauses in tuple structs #486

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 10, 2019

Conversation

DJMcNab
Copy link
Contributor

@DJMcNab DJMcNab commented Jan 10, 2019

Originally reported by @max-frai on discord.

As I was writing this, I was wondering if there's any way we can compare our test suite against libsyntax (i.e. check that it similarly fails/succeeds). Any ideas?

@matklad
Copy link
Member

matklad commented Jan 10, 2019

bors r+

Thanks!

bors bot added a commit that referenced this pull request Jan 10, 2019
486: Fix handling of where clauses in tuple structs r=matklad a=DJMcNab

Originally reported by @max-frai on discord.

As I was writing this, I was wondering if there's any way we can compare our test suite against libsyntax (i.e. check that it similarly fails/succeeds). Any ideas?

Co-authored-by: DJMcNab <[email protected]>
@matklad
Copy link
Member

matklad commented Jan 10, 2019

As I was writing this, I was wondering if there's any way we can compare our test suite against libsyntax (i.e. check that it similarly fails/succeeds). Any ideas?

My current strategy is just to wait until wg-grammar produces canonical grammar and a test suite :-)

@DJMcNab
Copy link
Contributor Author

DJMcNab commented Jan 10, 2019

Fair enough! I might as well link rust-lang/rust#17904, rust-lang/rust#20424 here too.

@bors
Copy link
Contributor

bors bot commented Jan 10, 2019

Build succeeded

@bors bors bot merged commit afdb569 into rust-lang:master Jan 10, 2019
@DJMcNab DJMcNab deleted the fix/tuple_struct_where branch January 24, 2019 20:17
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.

2 participants