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.
Or macro_rules hygiene, or mixed site hygiene. In other words, hygiene for variables and labels but not items.
The realization that made me implement this was that while "full" hygiene (aka. def site hygiene) is really hard for us to implement, and will likely involve intrusive changes and performance losses, since every `Name` will have to carry hygiene, mixed site hygiene is very local: it applies only to bodies, and we very well can save it in a side map with minor losses.
This fixes one diagnostic in r-a that was about `izip!()` using hygiene (yay!) but it introduces a huge number of others, because of #18262. Up until now this issue wasn't a major problem because it only affected few cases, but with hygiene identifiers referred by macros like that are not resolved at all. The next commit will fix that.
This PR touches a lot of parts. But the main changes are changing
`hir_expand::Name` to be raw edition-dependently and only when necessary
(unrelated to how the user originally wrote the identifier),
and changing `is_keyword()` and `is_raw_identifier()` to be edition-aware
(this was done in #17896, but the FIXMEs were fixed here).
It is possible that I missed some cases, but most IDE parts should properly
escape (or not escape) identifiers now.
The rules of thumb are:
- If we show the identifier to the user, its rawness should be determined
by the edition of the edited crate. This is nice for IDE features,
but really important for changes we insert to the source code.
- For tests, I chose `Edition::CURRENT` (so we only have to (maybe) update
tests when an edition becomes stable, to avoid churn).
- For debugging tools (helper methods and logs), I used `Edition::LATEST`.
Use anonymous lifetime where possible
Because anonymous lifetimes are *super* cool.
More seriously, I believe anonymous lifetimes, especially those in impl headers, reduce cognitive load to a certain extent because they usually signify that they are not relevant in the signature of the methods within (or that we can apply the usual lifetime elision rules even if they are relevant).
