Add a test and check-support for positional params with a return type #4899
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
danakj
force-pushed
the
positional-return
branch
from
b2fe363 to
660fb59
Compare
zygoloid
reviewed
Feb 5, 2025
Functions with positional parameters omit any implicit or explicit parameter lists. This causes them to not have a pattern block, which crashes if there is a return type that needs to add to the pattern block. Add a test covering this and handle it by having the ReturnTypeId handler peek at the node stack and conditionally add the missing pattern block. To do so it looks to see if the previous node is a `IdentifierNameNotBeforeParams` which implies it was not expecting a pattern (since there are no params) and thus the pattern block was not added to the stack. Note that lambdas also allow functions to omit an identifier, which will need a pattern block on the stack for implicit parameters, explicit parameters or a return type, without seeing any IdentifierName-like parse nodes. To handle this, we will need to look for additional nodes in the future and add the missing pattern block to the stack - possibly for the FunctionInitializer, but the parse support needs to be created for lambdas first.
danakj
force-pushed
the
positional-return
branch
from
ce6ba4e to
b728f4f
Compare
|
Reworded the commit description for the new approach as well, PTAL |
geoffromer
approved these changes
Feb 6, 2025
# for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
# 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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Functions with positional parameters omit any implicit or explicit parameter lists. This causes them to not have a pattern block, which crashes if there is a return type that needs to add to the pattern block.
Add a test covering this and handle it by having the ReturnTypeId handler peek at the node stack and conditionally add the missing pattern block. To do so it looks to see if the previous node is a
IdentifierNameNotBeforeParamswhich implies it was not expecting a pattern (since there are no params) and thus the pattern block was not added to the stack.Note that lambdas also allow functions to omit an identifier, which will need a pattern block on the stack for implicit parameters, explicit parameters or a return type, without seeing any IdentifierName-like parse nodes. To handle this, we will need to look for additional nodes in the future and add the missing pattern block to the stack - possibly for the FunctionInitializer, but the parse support needs to be created for lambdas first.