Support .a.[] and .a.[]? each syntax #2650
Conversation
| } | | ||
| Term '.' '[' ']' %prec NONOPT { | ||
| $$ = block_join($1, gen_op_simple(EACH)); | ||
| } | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe there a nice way? some concerns:
- I'm a bit bit confused how the chaining/suffix-list thing actually works in the grammar, what rule allows for the chaining?
- Does the new rules allow for some syntax that we don't want?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We should probably also support slice syntax? .a.[1:2]. Looking at the grammar the slice stuff has lots of rules. Wondering if there is some nice way to add optional dot without duplicating all the rules?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I second @wader's comment.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I'm a bit bit confused how the chaining/suffix-list thing actually works in the grammar, what rule allows for the chaining?
This one:
Exp '|' Exp {
$$ = block_join($1, $3);
} |
and:
Exp:
FuncDef Exp %prec FUNCDEF {
$$ = block_bind_referenced($1, $2, OP_IS_CALL_PSEUDO);
} |
... /* elided */
Term {
$$ = $1;
}
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Does the new rules allow for some syntax that we don't want?
I don't think so.
wader
force-pushed
the
term-chain-dot-each
branch
from
0a082d1
to
b59fb49
Compare
|
I mean, |
Yeap looks a bit weird :) the main reason for me is mostly to make things more consistent now when |
|
Oh. Interesting, I hadn't noticed that we allow that now. Yeah, I agree that if we're going to allow |
|
I believe this PR also in effect addresses the concerns expressed in #2512 |
|
LGTM |
|
Thanks! |
| } | | ||
| Term '.' '[' ']' %prec NONOPT { | ||
| $$ = block_join($1, gen_op_simple(EACH)); | ||
| } | | ||
| Term '[' Exp ':' Exp ']' '?' { | ||
| $$ = gen_slice_index($1, $3, $5, INDEX_OPT); | ||
| } | |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
@nicowilliams Sorry i should have marked this PR as draft as i think we probably want to support extra dot with all the different slice variants? also probably good with some basic tests for it. Then also thinking if there is some nicer way to write the rules that don't need as much duplication?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
We can always add that later.
Fixes #1699