feat: escapes #903
Merged
feat: escapes #903
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
kellyjosephprice
requested review from
rafegoldberg,
jennspencer and
trishaprile
trishaprile
approved these changes
Jun 13, 2024
|
This PR was released!🚀 Changes included in v6.75.0-beta.55 |
Closed
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
🧰 Changes
Compiles
escapenodes from rdmd.In
remark@9, they no longer treat escapes as a separate node type. This is mostly fine, except when we're migrating from rdmd to rmdx. The rules for escapes seem pretty simple, so I'm not too worried about this change.🧬 QA & Testing