feat(embedded): Add multiple experimental manifest syntaxes #13241
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
We added code fence support in ba869d3 (September), so I think this was enough of a transition period and there is little interest in going back to this.
This is to allow us to experiment with how things change if there is no infostring.
|
r? @ehuss (rustbot has picked a reviewer for you, use r? to override) |
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
Muscraft
reviewed
Jan 3, 2024
Comment on lines
+238
to
+241
| if tick_char == '#' { | ||
| // Attribute | ||
| return Ok(source); | ||
| } |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Should this explicitly check for #![] or #[]?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'd rather not get into the complexity of matching rust syntax. If we go this route, we can further evaluate what the exact behavior should be.
Muscraft
reviewed
Jan 3, 2024
Muscraft
approved these changes
Jan 3, 2024
|
@bors r+ |
bors
added
S-waiting-on-bors
|
☀️ Test successful - checks-actions |
|
Should we update the unstable doc accordingly? |
|
I think I'd rather wait until we have something more definitive to say about what direction we are going. |
epage
added a commit
to epage/cargo
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2024
This is a follow up to rust-lang#13241 with another syntax being discussed. This one is a bit more polarizing but we're hoping first-hand experience with it can help people get a feel for how well it works in practice.
epage
added a commit
to epage/cargo
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 3, 2024
This is a follow up to rust-lang#13241 with another syntax being discussed. This one is a bit more polarizing but we're hoping first-hand experience with it can help people get a feel for how well it works in practice. As the experiment is meant to be short-lived, this is implemented in a hacky way and docs aren't updated.
epage
added a commit
to epage/cargo
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 4, 2024
This is a follow up to rust-lang#13241 with another syntax being discussed. This one is a bit more polarizing but we're hoping first-hand experience with it can help people get a feel for how well it works in practice. As the experiment is meant to be short-lived, this is implemented in a hacky way and docs aren't updated.
bors
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 4, 2024
feat(embedded): Add prefix-char frontmatter syntax support This is a follow up to #13241 with another syntax being discussed. This one is a bit more polarizing but we're hoping first-hand experience with it can help people get a feel for how well it works in practice. As the experiment is meant to be short-lived, this is implemented in a hacky way and docs aren't updated.
bors
added a commit
to rust-lang-ci/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Jan 6, 2024
Update cargo 10 commits in add15366eaf3f3eb84717d3b8b71902ca36a7c84..2ce45605d9db521b5fd6c1211ce8de6055fdb24e 2024-01-02 03:24:42 +0000 to 2024-01-04 18:04:13 +0000 - feat(embedded): Add prefix-char frontmatter syntax support (rust-lang/cargo#13247) - Update dependency handlebars to v5 for mdman. (rust-lang/cargo#13249) - Deprecate rustc plugin support in cargo (rust-lang/cargo#13248) - feat(embedded): Add multiple experimental manifest syntaxes (rust-lang/cargo#13241) - chore: update auto labels (rust-lang/cargo#13244) - test: support publish package with a `public` field. (rust-lang/cargo#13245) - `cargo fix`: Call rustc fewer times. (rust-lang/cargo#13243) - chore: tracing be compat with rustc_log (rust-lang/cargo#13239) - chore(deps): update compatible (rust-lang/cargo#13227) - Contrib: Fix team HackMD links (rust-lang/cargo#13237) r? ghost
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in 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.
What does this PR try to resolve?
As syntax discussions for "cargo script" are on-going, this allows us to experiment with a couple of them so we can see how they work in practice.
This is missing the line-prefix syntax as we decide how we want to separate blocks for it.
While doing this, I removed the previous doc-comment syntax. This was left in for transition purposes. With where discussions are going, its unlikely we'll go back to that syntax.
How should we test and review this PR?
Additional information
rust-lang/rfcs#3503
https://rust-lang.zulipchat.com/#narrow/stream/213817-t-lang/topic/Syntax.20for.20embedded.20tooling.20metadata