Vadim Petrochenkov
Vadim Petrochenkov
>Enabling `--check-cfg=values()` currently incurs some compilation time hit (especially on small programs) Someone also needs to prepare a perf run to measure the exact slowdown.
I used this feature in the compiler, and I'm in the camp `1` I think, i.e. `if a && b && c { ... }` should be formatted identically regardless...
Repeating what I said in https://github.com/rust-lang-nursery/rustfmt/issues/2534#issuecomment-375920084, macros should be formatted like normal code, i.e. with space in `$name: kind` and possibly an extra preceding space when `:` is used as...
Can the code generally minimize amount of `#[cfg(...)]` in favor of `cfg!(...)`? It will get more checking and less surprises on remaining platforms. `#[cfg(...)]` is not really needed that often,...
@rustbot second
Status update: https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/pull/71314 implemented this RFC with a slightly different syntax - #[cfg(version("1.2.3"))] instead of `#[cfg(version(1.2.3))]`. The reason is that `1.2.3` doesn't fit into some existing attribute-parsing infrastructure in the...
Sometimes things in the compiler are named "legacy" too soon. At some point all `macro_rules` were referred as "legacy macros" internally (as opposed to "modern" macros 2.0).