rustdoc: remove def_ctor hack.#60137
Merged
bors merged 2 commits intorust-lang:masterfrom May 1, 2019
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
(rust_highfive has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rust-highfive
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Member
Author
Contributor
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit 5111735ddb9b3f06fdba0139e20340755408432c has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Member
Author
|
@bors r- |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-author
eddyb
commented
Apr 21, 2019
eddyb
force-pushed
the
rustdoc-rm-def-ctor-hax
branch
from
5111735 to
1c5b11e
Compare
Contributor
|
The job Click to expand the log.I'm a bot! I can only do what humans tell me to, so if this was not helpful or you have suggestions for improvements, please ping or otherwise contact |
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Well, looks like yes in theory, but not in practice because none of the "primitive" impls is actually hidden.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
My guess would be "not needed" or "needed only as optimization", if an item is hidden its impls won't be shown either way.
Contributor
|
Everything looks like a reasonable simplification, but the tests are failing. |
Collaborator
|
☔ The latest upstream changes (presumably #60317) made this pull request unmergeable. Please resolve the merge conflicts. |
eddyb
force-pushed
the
rustdoc-rm-def-ctor-hax
branch
from
1c5b11e to
be9f43e
Compare
Member
Author
|
@petrochenkov I just fixed the tests (the output is now more in line with cross-crate |
Contributor
|
@bors r+ |
Collaborator
|
📌 Commit be9f43e has been approved by |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
Collaborator
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
May 1, 2019
rustdoc: remove def_ctor hack. ~~No longer necessary since we have `describe_def`.~~ Turns out `def_ctor` was used in conjunction with abusing `tcx.type_of(def_id)` working on both type definitions and `impl`s (specifically, of builtin types), but also reimplementing a lot of the logic that `Clean` already provides on `Ty` / `ty::TraitRef`. The first commit now does the minimal refactor to keep it working, while the second commit contains the rest of the refactor I started (parts of which I'm not sure we need to keep).
Collaborator
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-travis, status-appveyor |
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
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
5 participants
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.
No longer necessary since we havedescribe_def.Turns out
def_ctorwas used in conjunction with abusingtcx.type_of(def_id)working on both type definitions andimpls (specifically, of builtin types), but also reimplementing a lot of the logic thatCleanalready provides onTy/ty::TraitRef.The first commit now does the minimal refactor to keep it working, while the second commit contains the rest of the refactor I started (parts of which I'm not sure we need to keep).