Minor cleanup from if to guard statement
#3172
Conversation
ahoppen
requested review from
bnbarham,
hamishknight and
rintaro
as code owners
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
@swift-ci Please test macOS |
Sources/SwiftParser/Lookahead.swift
Outdated
|
|
||
| // If we don't have attributes, then it cannot be an accessor block. | ||
| if nextToken.rawTokenKind != .atSign { | ||
| guard self.at(.atSign) else { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Ah sorry, nextToken is peek(). This is a behavior change.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Great catch, I guess this shows why at and peek(isAt:) are more explicit. Added a test case for this.
| get | ||
| var x: Int = 2 | ||
| { | ||
| @something |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@rintaro Do you have an idea what kind of attribute would make sense here, I can’t think of anything.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't think there's valid attribute for will/didSet at this point, at least I couldn't find a test case in swift repo. I believe handling attributes here is mostly for recovery/diagnostics. So @something is fine for me, maybe an attribute with argument clause (e.g. @available(...)) in addition to that, for extra coverage.
| func testAccessorBlockAfterPatternBindingDeclWithAttribute() { | ||
| assertParse( | ||
| """ | ||
| var x: Int = 2 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Avoid literal here. We don't try parsing trailing closure for literals
swift-syntax/Sources/SwiftParser/Expressions.swift
Lines 936 to 937 in 06f123a
I think the guard is a lot easier to read here, noticed while reviewing swiftlang#3171.
|
@swift-ci Please test |
|
@swift-ci Please test Windows |
3 participants
I think the guard is a lot easier to read here, noticed while reviewing #3171.