…mpty, r=petrochenkov

Add way to express that no values are expected with check-cfg

This PR adds way to express no-values (no values expected) with `--check-cfg` by making empty `values()` no longer mean `values(none())` (internal: `&[None]`) and now be an empty list (internal: `&[]`).

### Context

Currently `--check-cfg` has a way to express that _any value is expected_ with `values(any())`, but has no way to do the inverse and say that _no value is expected_.

This would be particularly useful for build systems that control a config name and it's values as they could always declare a config name as expected and if in the current state they have values pass them and if not pass an empty list.

To give a more concrete example, Cargo `--check-cfg` currently needs to generate:
 - `--check-cfg=cfg(feature, values(...))` for the case with declared features
 - and `--check-cfg=cfg()` for the case without any features declared

This means that when there are no features declared, users will get an `unexpected config name` but from the point of view of Cargo the config name `feature` is expected, it's just that for now there aren't any values for it.

See [Cargo `check_cfg_args` function](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/92395d90106b3b61bcb68bcf2069052c93771764/src/cargo/core/compiler/mod.rs#L1263-L1281) for more details.

### De-specializing *empty* `values()`

To solve this issue I propose that we "de-specialize" empty `values()` to no longer mean `values(none())` but to actually mean empty set/list. This is one of the last source of confusion for my-self and others with the `--check-cfg` syntax.

> The confusing part here is that an empty `values()` currently means the same as `values(none())`, i.e. an expected list of values with the _none_ variant (as in `#[cfg(name)]` where the value is none) instead of meaning an empty set.

Before the new `cfg()` syntax, defining the _none_ variant was only possible under certain circumstances, so in rust-lang#111068 I decided to make `values()` to mean the _none_ variant, but it is no longer necessary since rust-lang#119473 which introduced the `none()` syntax.

A simplified representation of the proposed "de-specialization" would be:

| Syntax                                  | List/set of expected values |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| `cfg(name)`/`cfg(name, values(none()))` | `&[None]`                   |
| `cfg(name, values())`                   | `&[]`                       |

Note that I have my-self made the mistake of using an empty `values()` as meaning empty set, see rust-lang/cargo#13011.

`@rustbot` label  F-check-cfg
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@epage`

…etrochenkov

Add way to express that no values are expected with check-cfg

This PR adds way to express no-values (no values expected) with `--check-cfg` by making empty `values()` no longer mean `values(none())` (internal: `&[None]`) and now be an empty list (internal: `&[]`).

### Context

Currently `--check-cfg` has a way to express that _any value is expected_ with `values(any())`, but has no way to do the inverse and say that _no value is expected_.

This would be particularly useful for build systems that control a config name and it's values as they could always declare a config name as expected and if in the current state they have values pass them and if not pass an empty list.

To give a more concrete example, Cargo `--check-cfg` currently needs to generate:
 - `--check-cfg=cfg(feature, values(...))` for the case with declared features
 - and `--check-cfg=cfg()` for the case without any features declared

This means that when there are no features declared, users will get an `unexpected config name` but from the point of view of Cargo the config name `feature` is expected, it's just that for now there aren't any values for it.

See [Cargo `check_cfg_args` function](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/92395d90106b3b61bcb68bcf2069052c93771764/src/cargo/core/compiler/mod.rs#L1263-L1281) for more details.

### De-specializing *empty* `values()`

To solve this issue I propose that we "de-specialize" empty `values()` to no longer mean `values(none())` but to actually mean empty set/list. This is one of the last source of confusion for my-self and others with the `--check-cfg` syntax.

> The confusing part here is that an empty `values()` currently means the same as `values(none())`, i.e. an expected list of values with the _none_ variant (as in `#[cfg(name)]` where the value is none) instead of meaning an empty set.

Before the new `cfg()` syntax, defining the _none_ variant was only possible under certain circumstances, so in rust-lang/rust#111068 I decided to make `values()` to mean the _none_ variant, but it is no longer necessary since rust-lang/rust#119473 which introduced the `none()` syntax.

A simplified representation of the proposed "de-specialization" would be:

| Syntax                                  | List/set of expected values |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| `cfg(name)`/`cfg(name, values(none()))` | `&[None]`                   |
| `cfg(name, values())`                   | `&[]`                       |

Note that I have my-self made the mistake of using an empty `values()` as meaning empty set, see rust-lang/cargo#13011.

`@rustbot` label  F-check-cfg
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@epage`

…etrochenkov

Add way to express that no values are expected with check-cfg

This PR adds way to express no-values (no values expected) with `--check-cfg` by making empty `values()` no longer mean `values(none())` (internal: `&[None]`) and now be an empty list (internal: `&[]`).

### Context

Currently `--check-cfg` has a way to express that _any value is expected_ with `values(any())`, but has no way to do the inverse and say that _no value is expected_.

This would be particularly useful for build systems that control a config name and it's values as they could always declare a config name as expected and if in the current state they have values pass them and if not pass an empty list.

To give a more concrete example, Cargo `--check-cfg` currently needs to generate:
 - `--check-cfg=cfg(feature, values(...))` for the case with declared features
 - and `--check-cfg=cfg()` for the case without any features declared

This means that when there are no features declared, users will get an `unexpected config name` but from the point of view of Cargo the config name `feature` is expected, it's just that for now there aren't any values for it.

See [Cargo `check_cfg_args` function](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/92395d90106b3b61bcb68bcf2069052c93771764/src/cargo/core/compiler/mod.rs#L1263-L1281) for more details.

### De-specializing *empty* `values()`

To solve this issue I propose that we "de-specialize" empty `values()` to no longer mean `values(none())` but to actually mean empty set/list. This is one of the last source of confusion for my-self and others with the `--check-cfg` syntax.

> The confusing part here is that an empty `values()` currently means the same as `values(none())`, i.e. an expected list of values with the _none_ variant (as in `#[cfg(name)]` where the value is none) instead of meaning an empty set.

Before the new `cfg()` syntax, defining the _none_ variant was only possible under certain circumstances, so in rust-lang/rust#111068 I decided to make `values()` to mean the _none_ variant, but it is no longer necessary since rust-lang/rust#119473 which introduced the `none()` syntax.

A simplified representation of the proposed "de-specialization" would be:

| Syntax                                  | List/set of expected values |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| `cfg(name)`/`cfg(name, values(none()))` | `&[None]`                   |
| `cfg(name, values())`                   | `&[]`                       |

Note that I have my-self made the mistake of using an empty `values()` as meaning empty set, see rust-lang/cargo#13011.

`@rustbot` label  F-check-cfg
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@epage`

…etrochenkov

Add way to express that no values are expected with check-cfg

This PR adds way to express no-values (no values expected) with `--check-cfg` by making empty `values()` no longer mean `values(none())` (internal: `&[None]`) and now be an empty list (internal: `&[]`).

### Context

Currently `--check-cfg` has a way to express that _any value is expected_ with `values(any())`, but has no way to do the inverse and say that _no value is expected_.

This would be particularly useful for build systems that control a config name and it's values as they could always declare a config name as expected and if in the current state they have values pass them and if not pass an empty list.

To give a more concrete example, Cargo `--check-cfg` currently needs to generate:
 - `--check-cfg=cfg(feature, values(...))` for the case with declared features
 - and `--check-cfg=cfg()` for the case without any features declared

This means that when there are no features declared, users will get an `unexpected config name` but from the point of view of Cargo the config name `feature` is expected, it's just that for now there aren't any values for it.

See [Cargo `check_cfg_args` function](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo/blob/92395d90106b3b61bcb68bcf2069052c93771764/src/cargo/core/compiler/mod.rs#L1263-L1281) for more details.

### De-specializing *empty* `values()`

To solve this issue I propose that we "de-specialize" empty `values()` to no longer mean `values(none())` but to actually mean empty set/list. This is one of the last source of confusion for my-self and others with the `--check-cfg` syntax.

> The confusing part here is that an empty `values()` currently means the same as `values(none())`, i.e. an expected list of values with the _none_ variant (as in `#[cfg(name)]` where the value is none) instead of meaning an empty set.

Before the new `cfg()` syntax, defining the _none_ variant was only possible under certain circumstances, so in rust-lang/rust#111068 I decided to make `values()` to mean the _none_ variant, but it is no longer necessary since rust-lang/rust#119473 which introduced the `none()` syntax.

A simplified representation of the proposed "de-specialization" would be:

| Syntax                                  | List/set of expected values |
|-----------------------------------------|-----------------------------|
| `cfg(name)`/`cfg(name, values(none()))` | `&[None]`                   |
| `cfg(name, values())`                   | `&[]`                       |

Note that I have my-self made the mistake of using an empty `values()` as meaning empty set, see rust-lang/cargo#13011.

`@rustbot` label  F-check-cfg
r? `@petrochenkov`
cc `@epage`