feat: Add macro segment completion #20741
Merged
Conversation
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
2e8a2f9 to
b4eae3b
Compare
Member
Author
|
r? @Veykril |
41 tasks
Example
---
```rust
macro_rules! foo {
($($x:$0)*) => ();
}
```
**Completion items**:
```text
ba block
ba expr
ba expr_2021
ba ident
ba item
ba lifetime
ba literal
ba meta
ba pat
ba pat_param
ba path
ba stmt
ba tt
ba ty
ba vis
```
b4eae3b to
d2cc89f
Compare
Veykril
approved these changes
Dec 27, 2025
Member
Veykril
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
minor question but otherwise looks good to me!
| } | ||
|
|
||
| pub fn is_in_macro_matcher(token: &SyntaxToken) -> bool { | ||
| let Some(macro_def) = token.parent_ancestors().find_map(ast::Macro::cast) else { |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(might have errors)
Suggested change
| let Some(macro_def) = token.parent_ancestors().find_map(ast::Macro::cast) else { | |
| let Some(Either::Right(macro_def)) = token.parent_ancestors().map_while(Either<ast::TokenTree, ast::Macro>::cast).last() else { |
Not really too important but this will short circuit a bit faster I think
Comment on lines
+513
to
+527
| } else if p.kind() == SyntaxKind::TOKEN_TREE | ||
| && p.ancestors().any(|it| ast::Macro::can_cast(it.kind())) | ||
| { | ||
| if let Some([_ident, colon, _name, dollar]) = fake_ident_token | ||
| .siblings_with_tokens(Direction::Prev) | ||
| .filter(|it| !it.kind().is_trivia()) | ||
| .take(4) | ||
| .collect_array() | ||
| && dollar.kind() == T![$] | ||
| && colon.kind() == T![:] | ||
| { | ||
| CompletionAnalysis::MacroSegment | ||
| } else { | ||
| return None; | ||
| } |
Member
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can't this re-use the new function in node-ext or is that filtering too aggressively?
Member
Author
There was a problem hiding this comment.
an't this re-use the new function in node-ext
New function checks if it is in ($0) => {} instead of () => {$0}
or is that filtering too aggressively?
For $x : ty, filtering whitespaces makes sense
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 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.
Close #11400
Example
Completion items: