Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
While it might look weird that this allows what usually isn't allowed - it all depends on the definition of those values. I think it makes sense to treat them as follows:
A spread element doesn't always increase such an argument count but the argument index at its positions gets increased
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
But what should an editor do when the argument index exceeds the count? The index has to be capped, doesn't it?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Out of bounds indexes are just ignored; on Python I did this intentionally, too (previously used a negative number until some rust-based LSP clients started getting picky). See: microsoft/language-server-protocol#1271
But, I'm more confused by how a spread element would change the number here; we're definitely indexing them correctly left to right, correct? Like if we have
(x, {y, z}), we don't go out of bounds onzbecause it's "at index 2" but the number of real params is 2? I assume not.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The added baseline here shows how we can still highlight the parameter in the signature - at least in this case 😉
In the situation above the rest adds 2 to the count (and not 1). See the PR that changed this: #56372
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Nitpick: That's a spread, not a rest. Rest is what you do when destructuring, spread is what you do at construction ("rest" doesn't make sense in that context because you can have multiple).