Allow compact record constructors to be missing a body, for parsing stubs #72
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
Codecov Report
@@ Coverage Diff @@
## master #72 +/- ##
===========================================
Coverage 57.062% 57.062%
Complexity 2562 2562
===========================================
Files 618 618
Lines 34499 34499
Branches 5802 5802
===========================================
Hits 19686 19686
Misses 12848 12848
Partials 1965 1965
Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more. Continue to review full report at Codecov.
|
|
Thanks for this enhancement! |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
A change to the stub parser to allow compact record constructors to lack a body. This lets you write stubs like:
It feels a bit strange to allow annotations on a single word without a sign to the parser that it's a constructor, but I don't think it's ambiguous because every field needs a type, and all other methods and constructors need parentheses. The only other way I can see to do it is to require the empty curly brackets instead -- which I would personally be fine with, but the approach in this PR felt more consistent with the way stubs usually work.