Struct expressions are defined with the grammar:
StructExpression ->
StructExprStruct
| StructExprTuple
| StructExprUnit
However, this isn't how struct expressions actually work. Only the curly braced form is a unique kind of expression. The tuple form is just a CallExpression (referring to the constructor in the value namespace), and the Unit form is just a PathExpression (referring to the const in the value namespace). In terms of building an AST, these forms don't exist.
I can understand presenting "struct expressions" as an "expression constructing a struct", and not trying to immediately confront the actual complexity of how it works. However, I think there is also risk of causing confusion with this presentation approach, since it isn't actually correct.
I recommend removing StructExprTuple and StructExprTuple entirely, removing expr.struct.tuple and expr.struct.unit, and replace the latter two with a note block that explains how the call and unit syntax works.
I traced some history back to rust-lang/rust@8554d5e which started this way of presenting it (and rust-lang/rust@332c046 for unit structs). I don't actually know if Rust has always modeled tuple structs as callable functions in the value namespace (as opposed to a constructor in the type namespace like the braced syntax), but I assume it was and that the docs were just written this way to make it easier for the reader to understand.
Struct expressions are defined with the grammar:
However, this isn't how struct expressions actually work. Only the curly braced form is a unique kind of expression. The tuple form is just a CallExpression (referring to the constructor in the value namespace), and the Unit form is just a PathExpression (referring to the const in the value namespace). In terms of building an AST, these forms don't exist.
I can understand presenting "struct expressions" as an "expression constructing a struct", and not trying to immediately confront the actual complexity of how it works. However, I think there is also risk of causing confusion with this presentation approach, since it isn't actually correct.
I recommend removing StructExprTuple and StructExprTuple entirely, removing
expr.struct.tupleandexpr.struct.unit, and replace the latter two with a note block that explains how the call and unit syntax works.I traced some history back to rust-lang/rust@8554d5e which started this way of presenting it (and rust-lang/rust@332c046 for unit structs). I don't actually know if Rust has always modeled tuple structs as callable functions in the value namespace (as opposed to a constructor in the type namespace like the braced syntax), but I assume it was and that the docs were just written this way to make it easier for the reader to understand.