Don't use proc-macro-hack; use our own slightly-less-hacky hack#1669
Merged
Conversation
palaviv
approved these changes
Jan 10, 2020
palaviv
left a comment
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Looks good. The CI is failing on some redundant new line 😞
5a80d49 to
098532b
Compare
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
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
proc-macro-hackis sort of a pain to deal with (based on the nested cargo features that were removed by this), and with Rust 1.40 function-like macros can generatemacro_rules!, so this is pretty easy to implement ourselves (proc-macro-hackdoes something with a custom derive on an enum and stringifying and reparsing the input stream).