Chained do IIFE: use grammar, not rewriter#5070
Merged
GeoffreyBooth merged 3 commits intojashkenas:astfrom Jul 12, 2018
Merged
Conversation
Collaborator
|
@helixbass Do you want to resolve the conflicts so we can wrap this up? |
Collaborator
Author
|
@GeoffreyBooth ok merged |
Collaborator
|
This looks good to me. @zdenko or @vendethiel or anyone else, any notes? |
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
2 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
@GeoffreyBooth in playing with whether
INDENT_SUPPRESSORcould be used for chaining, I came across #4666/#4672, where the consensus was that a grammar-based solution for handling chaineddoIIFE eg:would be better than the rewriter-based one added in those PRs
At this point I was comfortable tackling a grammar-based solution, so this PR removes that rewriter pass and instead adds tagging in the lexer to distinguish
DO(not followed by IIFE) fromDO_IIFEand grammar rules for both (and assigns higher precedence toDO_IIFE) - this should be more or less what @jashkenas was pushing for