-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 569
cfg_select! macro
#2103
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
base: master
Are you sure you want to change the base?
cfg_select! macro
#2103
Changes from all commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
|
|
@@ -31,7 +31,7 @@ r[cfg.general] | |
| *Conditionally compiled source code* is source code that is compiled only under certain conditions. | ||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.attributes-macro] | ||
| Source code can be made conditionally compiled using the [`cfg`] and [`cfg_attr`] [attributes] and the built-in [`cfg` macro]. | ||
| Source code can be made conditionally compiled using the [`cfg`] and [`cfg_attr`] [attributes] and the built-in [`cfg!`] and [`cfg_select!`] [macros]. | ||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.conditional] | ||
| Whether to compile can depend on the target architecture of the compiled crate, arbitrary values passed to the compiler, and other things further described below. | ||
|
|
@@ -466,11 +466,75 @@ let machine_kind = if cfg!(unix) { | |
| println!("I'm running on a {} machine!", machine_kind); | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.cfg_select] | ||
| ### The `cfg_select` macro | ||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.cfg_select.syntax] | ||
| ```grammar,configuration | ||
| CfgSelect -> | ||
| cfg_select! `{` CfgSelectBranch* `}` | ||
|
|
||
| CfgSelectConfigurationPredicate -> | ||
| ConfigurationPredicate | `_` | ||
|
|
||
| CfgSelectBranch -> | ||
| CfgSelectConfigurationPredicate `=>` `{` TokenTree `}` | ||
| | CfgSelectConfigurationPredicate `=>` TokenTree `,` | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.cfg_select.general] | ||
| The built-in `cfg_select` macro expands to the `TokenTree` on the right-hand side of the first configuration predicate that evaluates to `true`. | ||
|
Comment on lines
+485
to
+486
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. is it clear enough from the grammer and the language here that the |
||
|
|
||
| For example: | ||
|
|
||
| ```rust | ||
| cfg_select! { | ||
| unix => { | ||
| fn foo() { /* unix specific functionality */ } | ||
| } | ||
| target_pointer_width = "32" => { | ||
| fn foo() { /* non-unix, 32-bit functionality */ } | ||
| } | ||
| _ => { | ||
| fn foo() { /* fallback implementation */ } | ||
| } | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
| The `cfg_select` macro can also be used in expression position: | ||
|
|
||
| ```rust | ||
| let is_unix_str = cfg_select! { | ||
| unix => "unix", | ||
| _ => "not unix", | ||
| }; | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.cfg_select.wildcard] | ||
| A `_` can be used to write a configuration predicate that always evaluates to `true`. | ||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.cfg_select.fallthrough] | ||
| If none of the predicates evaluates to `true`, a compiler error is emitted. | ||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.cfg_select.positions] | ||
| The `cfg_select!` macro is accepted in the following macro expansion positions | ||
|
|
||
| - items | ||
| - statements | ||
| - expression | ||
| - impl items | ||
| - trait impl items | ||
| - trait items | ||
| - foreign items | ||
|
Comment on lines
+518
to
+527
Contributor
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. I can't find the positions in which macro expansion is allowed in the reference, actually.
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. The list of macro invocation sites is listed in https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/macros.html#r-macro.invocation.intro. I don't think this needs to duplicate the list. We haven't really gotten into documenting built-in attributes, so there isn't a well-trodden path here. I think it would be fine to say that it may specified in any position where macro invocations are allowed. |
||
|
|
||
| r[cfg.cfg_select.well-formed] | ||
| Each right-hand side must syntactically be valid expansion for the position that the macro is invoked in. | ||
|
|
||
| [Testing]: attributes/testing.md | ||
| [`--cfg`]: ../rustc/command-line-arguments.html#--cfg-configure-the-compilation-environment | ||
| [`--test`]: ../rustc/command-line-arguments.html#--test-build-a-test-harness | ||
| [`cfg`]: #the-cfg-attribute | ||
| [`cfg` macro]: #the-cfg-macro | ||
| [`cfg!`]: #the-cfg-macro | ||
| [`cfg_select!`]: #the-cfg_select-macro | ||
| [`cfg_attr`]: #the-cfg_attr-attribute | ||
| [`crate_name`]: crates-and-source-files.md#the-crate_name-attribute | ||
| [`crate_type`]: linkage.md | ||
|
|
@@ -479,4 +543,5 @@ println!("I'm running on a {} machine!", machine_kind); | |
| [attributes]: attributes.md | ||
| [cargo-feature]: ../cargo/reference/features.html | ||
| [crate type]: linkage.md | ||
| [macros]: macros.md | ||
| [static C runtime]: linkage.md#static-and-dynamic-c-runtimes | ||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This grammar doesn't quite look correct to me.
Some comments:
`cfg_select!` `{` … `}`because the braces can also be()or[](also!is a separate token), and the macro name can be renamed. I would suggest just documenting what the input to the macro is, and not the surrounding invocation syntax.,behavior.I'm thinking the grammar would be something closer to:
Where the X expressions are from the Expression grammar, but without the outer attributes. If this is correct, we'll need to rework
Expressionto support that.Does that make sense?
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Though looking again, my suggestion above won't work because we are moving towards a grammar that does not have infinite lookahead for disambiguation. So the
LastCfgSelectBranchwon't work. I offhand can't think of a way to actually express that...(Maybe lookahead is required?)