Hi,
In rust-lang/rust#143619 we want to start rejecting bare ... in function definitions. The ... syntax is meant for c-variadic functions, and those must have a pattern, e.g. ap: ... or _: .... Based on the crater run, this crate is the only crate that actually relies on ... getting parsed in this position.
Would it be possible for you to use different syntax for your macros? _: ... would work, but maybe you'd want to go with something else for aesthetic reasons?
We'd happily submit a PR if you have a specific solution in mind.
NOTE: the final decision over whether to cause this breakage is up to T-lang. Rust is normally very hesitant to break existing code, but because ... in function definitions cannot be used in stable rust, and this is the only crate using the fact that it does parse, it is likely to accept this change.
Hi,
In rust-lang/rust#143619 we want to start rejecting bare
...in function definitions. The...syntax is meant for c-variadic functions, and those must have a pattern, e.g.ap: ...or_: .... Based on the crater run, this crate is the only crate that actually relies on...getting parsed in this position.Would it be possible for you to use different syntax for your macros?
_: ...would work, but maybe you'd want to go with something else for aesthetic reasons?We'd happily submit a PR if you have a specific solution in mind.
NOTE: the final decision over whether to cause this breakage is up to T-lang. Rust is normally very hesitant to break existing code, but because
...in function definitions cannot be used in stable rust, and this is the only crate using the fact that it does parse, it is likely to accept this change.