Merged
Conversation
Owner
|
Thank you for your contribution. |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
This PR fixes #91.
After investigating my examples, I noticed the
method_callparser consumes the first method call (variable.method1()), leaving the other parsers to deal with a method call body on its own (.method2()) which obviously doesn't match anything.Instead,
variable.method1()should be recognized as aMethodCallRootand matched with itsMethodCallBody:method2()Note that in the 3rd test I added,
memberwas meant as a class member but is parsed as a method call. As far as I know, however, without more context (ie: the return type ofmethod1()and its definition), we cannot rule out one possibility in favor of the other.