Add a rule for attribute macro outline modules - #2310
Merged
Conversation
rust-lang/rust#157857 stabilized the ability to use `#[my macro] mod foo;`. The reference never specified that this was not allowed, so it doesn't absolutely need to be changed for this. However, since this was something that the lang team considered deeply enough on its own, it seems worthy to be explicit about this behavior.
rustbot
added
the
S-waiting-on-review
traviscross
approved these changes
Jul 28, 2026
Contributor
|
Makes sense to me. Thanks @ehuss. |
rustbot
removed
the
S-waiting-on-review
jhpratt
added a commit
to jhpratt/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2026
Update books ## rust-lang/reference 9 commits in afdc77bab886d4455c11247cdd32391bfab636ae..82da570bafd9efed421bdbae0f8603ede8dd308b 2026-08-08 22:04:17 UTC to 2026-07-28 18:20:15 UTC - add c-variadic function definitions (rust-lang/reference#2177) - Update `no_mangle` to use the attribute template (rust-lang/reference#1904) - enums with fields: clarify that repr(C, int) is quite different from repr(int) (rust-lang/reference#2227) - aliasing rules also apply inside private fields (rust-lang/reference#2304) - attributes: do not explain syntax in rules (rust-lang/reference#2306) - Document prohibition on inner attribute macros (rust-lang/reference#2311) - Use authentication for linkcheck (rust-lang/reference#2319) - Stabilize passing 128-bit integers via vector registers with `asm!` on x86 (rust-lang/reference#2313) - Add a rule for attribute macro outline modules (rust-lang/reference#2310)
rust-timer
added a commit
to rust-lang/rust
that referenced
this pull request
Aug 11, 2026
Rollup merge of #160866 - rustbot:docs-update, r=traviscross Update books ## rust-lang/reference 9 commits in afdc77bab886d4455c11247cdd32391bfab636ae..82da570bafd9efed421bdbae0f8603ede8dd308b 2026-08-08 22:04:17 UTC to 2026-07-28 18:20:15 UTC - add c-variadic function definitions (rust-lang/reference#2177) - Update `no_mangle` to use the attribute template (rust-lang/reference#1904) - enums with fields: clarify that repr(C, int) is quite different from repr(int) (rust-lang/reference#2227) - aliasing rules also apply inside private fields (rust-lang/reference#2304) - attributes: do not explain syntax in rules (rust-lang/reference#2306) - Document prohibition on inner attribute macros (rust-lang/reference#2311) - Use authentication for linkcheck (rust-lang/reference#2319) - Stabilize passing 128-bit integers via vector registers with `asm!` on x86 (rust-lang/reference#2313) - Add a rule for attribute macro outline modules (rust-lang/reference#2310)
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
3 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
rust-lang/rust#157857 stabilized the ability to use
#[my macro] mod foo;. The reference never specified that this was not allowed, so it doesn't absolutely need to be changed for this. However, since this was something that the lang team considered deeply enough on its own, it seems worthy to be explicit about this behavior.This is an alternative to #2284. Since we already have a rule that specifies where the attributes are allowed, this follows more closely to that to specify the behavior when applied to one of these module items.