Edits - #78
Conversation
idank
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I did a pass and it generally looks good to me. Granted I haven't touched the parser in years so we're learning together. :-)
Left a few small comments, let's fix those and add some tests? Thanks for the contribution!
| | newline_list LEFT_PAREN pattern RIGHT_PAREN newline_list''' | ||
| handleNotImplemented(p, 'pattern list') | ||
| parserobj = p.context |
| rparen = ast.node(kind='reservedword', word=p[4], pos=p.lexspan(4)) | ||
| parts.extend([lparen, patterns, rparen]) | ||
| if p.slice[-1].type == "compound_list": | ||
| # for some reason, p[-1] does not give the "true" last element, do not know why |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
ryandmaggio
commented
Apr 4, 2022
I've pushed my updated code which I believe to be correct (although resulting in a somewhat unintuitive AST, in my opinion, but it seems right). Locally, "make tests" doesn't work, it gives an error in the "malformed if" case, which is odd since I didn't touch that, to my knowledge. |
idank
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
looks good overall!
- can you please look at the test failures
- please squash the commits, i think you want to end up with one?
| redirects = [], | ||
| list=[ast.node(kind='case', parts=parts, pos=_partsspan(parts))], | ||
| pos=_partsspan(parts)) | ||
| #handleNotImplemented(p, 'case command') |
| '''case_clause : pattern_list | ||
| | case_clause_sequence pattern_list''' | ||
| handleNotImplemented(p, 'case clause') | ||
| | newline_list LEFT_PAREN pattern RIGHT_PAREN compound_list | ||
| | newline_list LEFT_PAREN pattern RIGHT_PAREN newline_list''' | ||
| handleNotImplemented(p, 'pattern list') | ||
| patterns = p[3] | ||
| rparen = ast.node(kind='reservedword', word=p[4], pos=p.lexspan(4)) | ||
| parts.extend([lparen, patterns, rparen]) | ||
| if p.slice[-1].type == "compound_list": |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
please add a comment that explains this part
| '''pattern : WORD | ||
| | pattern BAR WORD''' | ||
| handleNotImplemented(p, 'pattern') | ||
| ;; | ||
| esac | ||
| """ | ||
| self.assertASTEquals(s, |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
i see what you mean about the resulting ast :) is there a more condensed way to represent it, that is still in line with how everything else is parsed?
ryandmaggio
commented
Apr 14, 2022
I'm not sure what is going on with the test failures, I'm still looking into it, but the failures are in parts of the code that I hadn't knowingly touched (malformed if statements). I'll make sure to squash the commits on the next one (I'm pretty sure there are going to be more changes). |
Made some changes to parser and ast to support case_clauses and patterns. Submitting as a draft PR because I'm not sure if it is correct (it looks correct to me on the example I tested on, but I don't know how to compare it to the "canonical" ast).