Skip to content

Nonoptional terminal glob #19990

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

Closed
wants to merge 1 commit into from
Closed

Conversation

th0114nd
Copy link
Contributor

Unless I'm mistaken, any use should end in an identifier, a '*', or a collection of items in {...}. As it stands,
use x::; is a valid statement which I don't think has any corresponding meaning.

Unless I'm mistaken, any `use` should end in an identifier, a `'*'`, or a collection of items in `{...}`. As it stands,
`use x::;` is a valid statement which I don't think has any corresponding meaning.
@ftxqxd
Copy link
Contributor

ftxqxd commented Dec 18, 2014

I think the grammar tends to use [ ] for grouping alone, and uses [ ] ? to denote an optional thing. So I think this might have been correct before?

@steveklabnik
Copy link
Member

It's very inconsistent, overall.

@th0114nd
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yes that's correct, I was confused with [] indicating optional and () indicating mandatory.

@th0114nd th0114nd closed this Dec 18, 2014
lnicola pushed a commit to lnicola/rust that referenced this pull request Jun 16, 2025
Generate annotations for macro defined items if their name is in the input
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.

3 participants