Add support for EPP templates (#901) #903
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
pyrmont
suggested changes
Jul 29, 2019
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm sorry it's taken so long to review what's a very simple lexer all things considered! :( I'm afraid since we restarted work on Rouge, we've been going backwards through the outstanding PRs and that meant this one took a while to reach.
Some comments below. Let me know if anything is unclear!
pyrmont
added
author-action
pyrmont
added
dependent-pr
pyrmont
removed
the
dependent-pr
|
@ananace Hey, we got it merged in (eventually)! Yay! 🎉 Rouge is currently on a two-week release schedule so this will come out as part of v3.8.0 next Tuesday. Thanks for your hard work and your patience! |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Based off of a lightly modified ERB lexer, just with the added parsing of parameter blocks.
I'm not entirely sure if it's best to just extend the open/close regexps, or to add a completely separate parameters state.
This fixes #901.