Tracking issue for #![register_attr]
#66080
Comments
jonas-schievink
added
A-attributes
Support registering inert attributes and attribute tools using crate-level attributes
And remove `#[feature(custom_attribute)]`.
(`rustc_plugin::Registry::register_attribute` is not removed yet, I'll do it in a follow up PR.)
```rust
#![register_attr(my_attr)]
#![register_tool(my_tool)]
#[my_attr] // OK
#[my_tool::anything] // OK
fn main() {}
```
---
Some tools (`rustfmt` and `clippy`) used in tool attributes are hardcoded in the compiler.
We need some way to introduce them without hardcoding as well.
This PR introduces a way to do it with a crate level attribute.
The previous attempt to introduce them through command line (#57921) met some resistance.
This probably needs to go through an RFC before stabilization.
However, I'd prefer to land *this* PR without an RFC to able to remove `#[feature(custom_attribute)]` and `Registry::register_attribute` while also providing a replacement.
---
`register_attr` is a direct replacement for `#![feature(custom_attribute)]` (#29642), except it doesn't rely on implicit fallback from unresolved attributes to custom attributes (which was always hacky and is the primary reason for the removal of `custom_attribute`) and requires registering the attribute explicitly.
It's not clear whether it should go through stabilization or not.
It's quite possible that all the uses should migrate to `#![register_tool]` (#66079) instead.
---
Details:
- The naming is `register_attr`/`register_tool` rather than some `register_attributes` (plural, no abbreviation) for consistency with already existing attributes like `cfg_attr`, or `feature`, etc.
---
Previous attempt: #57921
cc #44690
Tracking issues: #66079 (`register_tool`), #66080 (`register_attr`)
Closes #29642
…sper rustc_plugin: Remove `Registry::register_attribute` Legacy plugins cannot register inert attributes anymore. The preferred replacement is to use `register_tool` ([tracking issue](rust-lang#66079)). ```rust #![register_tool(servo)] #[servo::must_root] struct S; ``` The more direct replacement is `register_attribute` ([tracking issue](rust-lang#66080)) ```rust #![register_attr(must_root)] #[must_root] struct S; ``` , but it requires registering each attribute individually rather than registering the tool once, and is more likely to be removed rather than stabilized.
…sper rustc_plugin: Remove `Registry::register_attribute` Legacy plugins cannot register inert attributes anymore. The preferred replacement is to use `register_tool` ([tracking issue](rust-lang#66079)). ```rust #![register_tool(servo)] #[servo::must_root] struct S; ``` The more direct replacement is `register_attribute` ([tracking issue](rust-lang#66080)) ```rust #![register_attr(must_root)] #[must_root] struct S; ``` , but it requires registering each attribute individually rather than registering the tool once, and is more likely to be removed rather than stabilized.
We discussed this in today's @rust-lang/lang meeting, and we agreed: anything new should be scoped, and anything existing we need to support for backwards compatibility shouldn't require calling @rfcbot close |
|
Team member @joshtriplett has proposed to close this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members: No concerns currently listed. Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up! See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me. |
rfcbot
added
proposed-final-comment-period
|
@rfcbot reviewed |
rfcbot
added
the
final-comment-period
|
🔔 This is now entering its final comment period, as per the review above. 🔔 |
rfcbot
removed
the
proposed-final-comment-period
rfcbot
added
finished-final-comment-period
|
The final comment period, with a disposition to close, as per the review above, is now complete. As the automated representative of the governance process, I would like to thank the author for their work and everyone else who contributed. |
joshtriplett
added
E-easy
|
Hello folks! This can't be closed yet, despite the FCP, because the feature still exists in the compiler under the If anyone would like to make a PR to remove the associated code (and tests) under the gate, it'd be appreciated! |
Remove `register_attr` feature Closes rust-lang#66080 Signed-off-by: Yuki Okushi <jtitor@2k36.org>
This is a direct replacement for now removed
#, except it doesn't rely on implicit fallback from unresolved attributes to custom attributes (which was always hacky and is the primary reason for the removal ofcustom_attribute) and requires registering the attribute explicitly.It's not yet clear whether this should go through stabilization or not.
It's quite possible that all the uses should migrate to
# instead.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: