2.9 KiB
- Feature Name:
dotdot_patterns
- Start Date: 2019-06-01
- RFC PR: rust-lang/rfcs#2707
- Rust Issue: rust-lang/rust#62254
Summary
Make ..
a pattern rather than a syntactic fragment of some other patterns.
Motivation
The change simplifies pattern grammar and simplifies use of ..
in macros.
In particular, the pat
macro matcher will now accept ..
and IDENT @ ..
.
Guide-level explanation
..
becomes a pattern syntactically.
The notable consequences of this are listed below.
-
pat
macro matcher will now accept..
and more complex pattern containing..
, for exampleref x @ ..
. -
A trailing comma is accepted after
..
in tuple struct, tuple or slice pattern.
Variant(a, b, ..,) // OK
- Some nonsensical code can now be accepted under
cfg(FALSE)
.
#[cfg(FALSE)]
Tuple(.., a, ..) // OK
..
in "inappropriate" positions is still rejected semantically.
let .. = 10; // Semantic error, `..` is not a part of a "list" pattern
let Option(.., ..) = 11; // Semantic error, multiple `..`s in a single "list" pattern
Reference-level explanation
Pattern grammar is extended with a new production
PAT = ..
Special productions allowing ..
in tuple struct, tuple and slice patterns are subsumed by this
new production and removed.
Semantically, the ..
pattern is accepted
- Immediately inside a tuple struct/variant pattern
Tuple(PAT, .., PAT)
- Immediately inside a tuple pattern
(PAT, .., PAT)
- Immediately inside a slice pattern
[PAT, .., PAT]
. - Immediately inside a binding pattern inside a slice pattern
[PAT, BINDING @ .., PAT]
.
An error is produced if this pattern is used in any other position.
An error is produced if more that one ..
or BINDING @ ..
pattern is used inside its containing
tuple struct / tuple / slice pattern.
(..)
is still a tuple pattern and not a parenthesized ..
pattern for backward compatibility.
Note that ..
in struct patterns
Struct { field1: PAT, field2, .. }
is still not a pattern, but a fragment of a struct pattern syntax.
Drawbacks
More meaningless code may be accepted under cfg(FALSE)
where semantic checks are not performed.
Rationale and alternatives
See "Motivation" for the rationale.
Status quo is always an alternative.
Prior art
This RFC is a follow up to https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs/pull/2359.
Unresolved questions
None so far.
Future possibilities
Accept BINDING @ ..
in tuple patterns, (head, tail @ ..)
.