Note that `for` type is rust-analyzer's own invention.
Both the reference and syn allow `for` only for fnptr types, and we
allow them everywhere. This needs to be checked with respect to type
bounds grammar...
The TypeRef name comes from IntelliJ days, where you often have both
type *syntax* as well as *semantical* representation of types in
scope. And naming both Type is confusing.
In rust-analyzer however, we use ast types as `ast::Type`, and have
many more semantic counterparts to ast types, so avoiding name clash
here is just confusing.
The primary advantage of ungrammar is that it (eventually) allows one
to describe concrete syntax tree structure -- with alternatives and
specific sequence of tokens & nodes.
That should be re-usable for:
* generate `make` calls
* Rust reference
* Hypothetical parser's evented API
We loose doc comments for the time being unfortunately. I don't think
we should add support for doc comments to ungrammar -- they'll make
grammar file hard to read. We might supply docs as out-of band info,
or maybe just via a reference, but we'll think about that once things
are no longer in flux
This reverts commit 7a49165f5d.
MacroStmts ast node is not used by itself, but it pertains
to SyntaxNodeKind MACRO_STMTS that is used by ra_paser, so
even tho the node itself is not used, it is better to keep it
with a FIXME to actually add a doc comment when it becomes useful.