Tolerate malformed comments in shebang lookahead - #2331
Merged
Conversation
Our `SHEBANG` rule did not accept `#!/*`, even though that's a valid shebang per `rustc`. The trouble is the interaction between the negative lookahead and the cut within `BLOCK_COMMENT`: the cut forces an immediate error even within the context of a negative lookahead. We rely on that semantic elsewhere. To fix this, let's add a `SHEBANG_BLOCK_COMMENT` rule that accepts what `rustc` does.
traviscross
force-pushed
the
TC/fix-shebang-grammar
branch
from
August 18, 2026 23:25
c0e1d10 to
853831a
Compare
Contributor
Author
|
cc @mattheww |
ehuss
approved these changes
Aug 18, 2026
Contributor
Author
|
cc #2325 |
Contributor
Author
|
Thanks again, @mattheww, for flagging the divergences here. |
Contributor
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Our
SHEBANGrule did not accept#!/*, even though that's a valid shebang perrustc. The trouble is the interaction between the negative lookahead and the cut withinBLOCK_COMMENT: the cut forces an immediate error even within the context of a negative lookahead. We rely on that semantic elsewhere.To fix this, let's add a
SHEBANG_BLOCK_COMMENTrule that accepts whatrustcdoes.cc @ehuss