| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| |
|
|
|
| |
This reverts commit 884e1ce762d98b29594146d37b85384581d9ba96, reversing
changes made to f6fcc4431f272c707d49de68add532c452dd4b0f.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The parser hole I found while working on the generated positions
serves as the umbrella for a host of improvements. Upgraded
positions assigned during some specific challenging situations mostly
involving the creation of synthetic trees, e.g. for comprehensions
and closures. While doing so improved some error messages.
Eliminated some of the most glaring duplication in the parser.
It's written like there is some payoff associated with being
spectacularly imperative. Not so far.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Can't ensure range position points are meaningful when we never
see them. To limit noise, only print the point when it != start.
[x:y] // point=x, start=x, end=y
[p/x:y] // point=p, start=x, end=y
I'm open to a different syntax.
Also prints NoPosition as [X] rather than [NoPosition] because
noise is for construction workers and attenders of rock concerts.
Some range position and parser tests are included so we can see
the checkfile change when the forthcoming fix happens (either an
error message improvement or a positional one.)
|
|
|
This is a retry of #2801 after figuring out the range position
error. Should there be anyone out there who compiles with -Xdev,
know that this commit eliminates the 1406 errors one presently
incurs compiling src/library.
A val declared in source code receives only one tree from the
parser, but two are needed - one for the field and one for the
getter. I discovered long ago that if the val had an existential
type, this was creating issues with incompatible existentials
between the field and the getter. However the remedy for that
did not take into account the whole of the wide range of super
subtle issues which accompany tree duplication.
In particular, the duplicated tree must be given not only a
fresh TypeTree(), but that TypeTree cannot share the same
original without running afoul of range position invariants.
That's because typedTypeTree resurrects the original tree with
whatever position it has - so the "original" needs to be a
duplicate of the original with a focused position.
Should the call to TypeTree.duplicate also duplicate the original?
I think so, but I bequeath this question to others.
This commit also eliminated some duplicate error messages, because
duplicate suppression depends on the errors having the same position.
See c478eb770d, 7a6fa80937 for previous related work.
|
