Skip to content
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

Check warnings/errors for positions #3211

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Apr 24, 2018
Merged

Conversation

garyb
Copy link
Member

@garyb garyb commented Jan 21, 2018

No description provided.

Copy link
Contributor

@hdgarrood hdgarrood left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This is a great idea 👍

@matthewleon
Copy link
Contributor

package-lock.json is included in this commit. There seems to have been an informal policy to not do this up until now. Is this changing?

@garyb
Copy link
Member Author

garyb commented Jan 21, 2018

Look again 😉 maybe GH being slow, it was in the original commit but I amended it and re-pushed before opening the PR.

@@ -47,7 +47,6 @@ opTable
-> [[P.Operator (Chain a) () Identity a]]
opTable ops fromOp reapply =
map (map (\(name, a) -> P.Infix (P.try (matchOp fromOp name) >> return (reapply name)) (toAssoc a))) ops
++ [[ P.Infix (P.try (parseOp fromOp >>= \ident -> return (reapply ident))) P.AssocLeft ]]
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Did the change from #3212 accidentally sneak in here? ;) https://github.com/purescript/purescript/pull/3212/files

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It didn't sneak in no, it's kinda required since reapply needs a source position now, and this case can't provide one (unless / until the entire AST has source positions).

I've been considering how to test it since seeing Phil's reply to #3212, as it didn't break any of the existing tests.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Oh, er, maybe it snuck into this specific PR after all, but one of the others I opened about the same time makes the above comment true.

@garyb
Copy link
Member Author

garyb commented Jan 25, 2018

I'm going to merge this when it actually passes, so when #3208 is finished basically :)

@garyb
Copy link
Member Author

garyb commented Apr 24, 2018

This now passes 🎉 (it's based on top of #3318)

@garyb garyb merged commit 948aafe into purescript:master Apr 24, 2018
@garyb garyb deleted the missing-positions branch April 24, 2018 22:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

5 participants