Add handling of boolean literals to condition evaluation #91
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
|
Good idea! Except for the missing newline, approved. :) |
GuillaumeGomez
force-pushed
the
cond-evaluation
branch
from
6866290
to
96be934
Compare
|
Woups. Fixed. 😆 |
Kijewski
approved these changes
Jul 27, 2024
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR always checks for booleans in
condition_evaluationfunction. One thing I thought about: we could skip this function entirely if we don't haveis (not) definedinside a condition. However, it'd require to either go through all items of the conditions to see if one of them isis (not) definedor to pass a&mut boolto check if the expression encounters one of them.Another thing I thought: instead of handling the evaluation in the generator, we could potentially handle it in the parser directly (and therefore, not having the branches in the AST if the previous
ifexcluded it). Not sure if it's a good idea or not though.Anyway, this PR is much simpler than that since it only adds checks for boolean literals. :)