It should be considered by the edition of the caller, not the callee.
Technically we still don't do it correctly - we need the span of the method name (if it comes from a macro), but we don't keep it and this is good enough for now.
More correctly, *also* per-token. Because as it turns out, while the top-level edition affects parsing (I think), the per-token edition affects escaping of identifiers/keywords.
I expected this to be faster (due to less allocations and better cache locality), but benchmarked it is not (neither it is slower). Memory usage, however, drops by ~50mb (of `analysis-stats .`). I guess tt construction is just not hot.
This also simplifies using even less memory for token trees by compressing equal span, which I plan to do right after.
Some workflows are more easily expressed with a flat tt, while some are better expressed with a tree. With the right helpers, though (which was mostly a matter of trial and error), even the worst workflows become very easy indeed.
Because it was a mess.
Previously, pretty much you had to handle all path diagnostics manually: remember to check for them and handle them. Now, we wrap the resolver in `TyLoweringContext` and ensure proper error reporting.
This means that you don't have to worry about them: most of the things are handled automatically, and things that cannot will create a compile-time error (forcing you top `drop(ty_lowering_context);`) if forgotten, instead of silently dropping the diagnostics.
The real place for error reporting is in the hir-def resolver, because there are other things resolving, both in hir-ty and in hir-def, and they all need to ensure proper diagnostics. But this is a good start, and future compatible.
This commit also ensures proper path diagnostics for value/pattern paths, which is why it's marked "feat".
The reason I did this is because I plan to add another field to this struct (indicating whether the item was cfg'ed out), but it seems worthy even separately and removes a bunch of one-letter variable names and tuple-indexing. It is also easy to separate from future changes, so it will be easier to review this way.
