Put pin!() tests in the right file.

In rust-lang#138717, these tests were put in `tests/pin.rs`, but they should go in `tests/pin_macro.rs`.

r? `@jdonszelmann`

Rollup merge of rust-lang#139052 - m-ou-se:pin-macro-tests, r=joboet

Put pin!() tests in the right file.

In rust-lang#138717, these tests were put in `tests/pin.rs`, but they should go in `tests/pin_macro.rs`.

r? `@jdonszelmann`

Add more tests for pin!().

This adds the tests suggested by `@danielhenrymantilla` in this comment: rust-lang#138717 (comment) by

Rollup merge of rust-lang#139097 - m-ou-se:pin-tests, r=WaffleLapkin

Add more tests for pin!().

This adds the tests suggested by `@danielhenrymantilla` in this comment: rust-lang#138717 (comment) by

…pkin

Add an attribute that makes the spans from a macro edition 2021, and fix pin on edition 2024 with it

Fixes a regression, see issue below. This is a temporary fix, super let is the real solution.

Closes rust-lang#138596

Put pin!() tests in the right file.

In rust-lang#138717, these tests were put in `tests/pin.rs`, but they should go in `tests/pin_macro.rs`.

r? `@jdonszelmann`

Add more tests for pin!().

This adds the tests suggested by `@danielhenrymantilla` in this comment: rust-lang#138717 (comment) by

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang/rust#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang/rust#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang/rust#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang/rust#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang/rust#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang/rust#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang/rust#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang/rust#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

…Urgau

Remove (now unused) #[rustc_macro_edition_2021] attribute

Now that rust-lang#139114 has been merged, we no longer need the temporary hack (`#[rustc_macro_edition_2021]`) that we introduced in rust-lang#138717. Time to remove it.

…Urgau

Remove (now unused) #[rustc_macro_edition_2021] attribute

Now that rust-lang#139114 has been merged, we no longer need the temporary hack (`#[rustc_macro_edition_2021]`) that we introduced in rust-lang#138717. Time to remove it.

Rollup merge of rust-lang#140067 - m-ou-se:remove-macro-2021-hack, r=Urgau

Remove (now unused) #[rustc_macro_edition_2021] attribute

Now that rust-lang#139114 has been merged, we no longer need the temporary hack (`#[rustc_macro_edition_2021]`) that we introduced in rust-lang#138717. Time to remove it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.

Implement `pin!()` using `super let`

Tracking issue for super let: rust-lang/rust#139076

This uses `super let` to implement `pin!()`.

This means we can remove [the hack](rust-lang/rust#138717) we had to put in to fix rust-lang/rust#138596.

It also means we can remove the original hack to make `pin!()` work, which used a questionable public-but-unstable field rather than a proper private field.

While `super let` is still unstable and subject to change, it seems safe to assume that future Rust will always have a way to express `pin!()` in a compatible way, considering `pin!()` is already stable.

It'd help [the experiment](rust-lang/rust#139076) to have `pin!()` use `super let`, so we can get some more experience with it.