-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2.1k
unified: improve node locations #22608
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
18 commits
Select commit
Hold shift + click to select a range
bc1b012
yeast: Track child source ranges in separate contexts
tausbn 15e4a20
yeast: Handle empty locations correctly
tausbn 5ab8674
yeast: Add explicit location macros
tausbn c651c5f
yeast: Add location heuristic for synthetic nodes with no location set
tausbn 0bf705a
Unified: Add locations for blocks
tausbn c953ebd
Unified: Fix locations of various tokens
tausbn 3843b4a
Unified: Fix locations of synthesized array types
tausbn 04a6768
Unified: Format Swift translation rules
tausbn 3edeab0
Unified: Exclude trailing commas from locations
tausbn c8d3608
yeast: Annotate children outside parent source ranges
tausbn a6ffe1f
Unified: Give accessors their own source ranges
tausbn 364d59c
Unified: Update location test expectations
tausbn d9211f7
yeast: Fix condition to return empty_at_start for range match
tausbn 624cdfe
Unified: Update Swift initializer declaration rule
tausbn 4639e25
yeast: Clarify created node tracking
tausbn 90e8424
yeast: Ignore empty boundary ranges
tausbn 9f59b2c
Unified: Refine Swift block locations
tausbn 152bf4b
yeast: Clarify explicit location documentation
tausbn File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
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
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
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
Oops, something went wrong.
Oops, something went wrong.
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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Overall this is really confusing to read.
tree_at!can be used to assign a range to the template's root?What is
source, the second argument passed totree_at!? Would it make sense to rename tosource_range?Perhaps it would help to preface the descriptions of
tree_at!andtree_spanning!with a paragraph like:and then also include a full
rule!example for each of the macros.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I agree, the wording is a bit confusing. The intent was that
tree_at!andtree_spanning!behave exactly as theirtree!counterpart, but the new argument provides the location of the tree being constructed.The wording has (hopefully) been clarified in 152bf4b.