-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 18
Support reanalyze examples #172
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
Conversation
| repeat($.decorator), | ||
| $.expression, | ||
| repeat(alias($._let_binding_and, $.let_binding)), | ||
| optional(alias($._let_binding_and, $.let_binding)), |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I have no clear idea why it is generating an error (#171).
My hypothesis: As the rule _let_binding_and has a _let_binding rule so it's already recursive.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Perhaps, yes. I also see no precedence specs for let_binding, _let_binding, _let_binding_and. Maybe that’s what involved too.
Nevertheless, I think the new variant is fine too.
| repeat($.decorator), | ||
| $.expression, | ||
| repeat(alias($._let_binding_and, $.let_binding)), | ||
| optional(alias($._let_binding_and, $.let_binding)), |
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.
Perhaps, yes. I also see no precedence specs for let_binding, _let_binding, _let_binding_and. Maybe that’s what involved too.
Nevertheless, I think the new variant is fine too.
nkrkv
left a comment
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.
🥳
Close #171
Close #68