Web lists-archives.com

Re: [PATCH v2] userdiff: add built-in pattern for rust




Hi

On Fri, May 17, 2019 at 8:26 AM Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Am 17.05.19 um 01:58 schrieb marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx:
> > From: Marc-André Lureau <mlureau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > This adds xfuncname and word_regex patterns for Rust, a quite
> > popular programming language. It also includes test cases for the
> > xfuncname regex (t4018) and updated documentation.
> >
> > The word_regex pattern finds identifiers, integers, floats and
> > operators, according to the Rust Reference Book.
> >
> > Cc: Johannes Sixt <j6t@xxxxxxxx>
>
> In this code base, Cc: footers are disliked.

Noted

>
> > Signed-off-by: Marc-André Lureau <marcandre.lureau@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > ---
>
> > diff --git a/t/t4018/rust-trait b/t/t4018/rust-trait
> > new file mode 100644
> > index 0000000000..ea397f09ed
> > --- /dev/null
> > +++ b/t/t4018/rust-trait
> > @@ -0,0 +1,5 @@
> > +unsafe trait RIGHT<T> {
> > +    fn len(&self) -> u32;
> > +    fn ChangeMe(&self, n: u32) -> T;
> > +    fn iter<F>(&self, f: F) where F: Fn(T);
> > +}
>
> You mentioned that 'unsafe' is commonly used for blocks, and these cases
> should not be picked up. Can we have a test case that demonstrates that
> this is indeed the case?

Ok, I am adding:

unsafe fn RIGHT(inc: u32) {
    unsafe {
        // don't catch unsafe block
        ChangeMe += inc;
    }
}

>
> > diff --git a/userdiff.c b/userdiff.c
> > index 3a78fbf504..8d7e62e2a5 100644
> > --- a/userdiff.c
> > +++ b/userdiff.c
> > @@ -130,6 +130,13 @@ PATTERNS("ruby", "^[ \t]*((class|module|def)[ \t].*)$",
> >        "(@|@@|\\$)?[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*"
> >        "|[-+0-9.e]+|0[xXbB]?[0-9a-fA-F]+|\\?(\\\\C-)?(\\\\M-)?."
> >        "|//=?|[-+*/<>%&^|=!]=|<<=?|>>=?|===|\\.{1,3}|::|[!=]~"),
> > +PATTERNS("rust",
> > +      "^[\t ]*((pub(\\([^\\)]+\\))?[\t ]+)?((async|const|unsafe|extern([\t ]+\"[^\"]+\"))[\t ]+)?(struct|enum|union|mod|trait|fn|impl(<.+>)?)[ \t]+[^;]*)$",
> > +      /* -- */
> > +      "[a-zA-Z_][a-zA-Z0-9_]*"
> > +      "|[-+_0-9.eE]+(f32|f64|u8|u16|u32|u64|u128|usize|i8|i16|i32|i64|i128|isize)?"
>
> This pattern did not change. Doesn't it still mark "+e_1.e_8-e_2.eu128"
> as a single word?
>
> > +      "|0[box]?[0-9a-fA-F_]+(u8|u16|u32|u64|u128|usize|i8|i16|i32|i64|i128|isize)?"
>
> I still think that you should reduce the complexity of these patterns.
> They do not have to be restrictive to dismiss wrong syntax, just liberal
> enough to catch correct syntax. Let me try again:
>
>         "|[0-9][0-9_a-fA-Fiosuxz]*(\\.([0-9]*[eE][+-]?)?[0-9_fF]*)?"

That seems to be pretty good. It misses 12E+99_f64, but I am not sure
it is worth the trouble of having a second rule for floating for this
case.

>
> > +      "|[-+*\\/<>%&^|=!:]=|<<=?|>>=?|&&|\\|\\||->|=>|\\.{2}=|\\.{3}|::")
> -- Hannes

Thanks!