Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Adds support for 'QuotedLiteral'. #79

Closed
wants to merge 3 commits into from
Closed

Adds support for 'QuotedLiteral'. #79

wants to merge 3 commits into from

Conversation

johanatan
Copy link

I decide to use \u2018 for the delimiter as it required fewer code changes and should not collide with any ES6 work.

@disnet
Copy link
Member

disnet commented Jun 28, 2013

So I don't think we should use characters that can't be typed on a standard keyboard. Does $[] work since we're already sort of using that syntax?

macro m {
  case ($x ...) => {
    $[$x + $y];
    foo($x (,) ..., $[...]argWithSpread);
  }
}
m(a, b)
--->
$x + $y;
foo(a, b, ...argWithSpread);

Back tick is really nice though...could we do #`` to avoid clashing with quasias?

@johanatan
Copy link
Author

Actually $[] seems pretty nice and consistency is important so I think I will go with that.

@johanatan
Copy link
Author

Actually, it isn't a very straightforward change to move from a single char delimiter to two. I'm going to leave this to you if you want to pick it up and integrate it with the existing $[] functionality (as this project has proved too immature to be of much use to me at the moment and unfortunately I don't have the time to devote to its maturing).

@disnet
Copy link
Member

disnet commented Jun 28, 2013

Will do. Thanks for trying!

@disnet disnet closed this Jun 28, 2013
@johanatan
Copy link
Author

So, do you have an ETA on when you are going to be able to finish this off? It should be quite quick and easy for someone who's knowledgeable about the code.

I had just planned to maintain my separate branch and pull upstream changes; however, you have made pretty radical changes since I initially re-forked and it would be better to just re-fork and make my changes again (and I'd rather not do that unless there's some guarantee that merging upstream changes later wouldn't put me in the same position once again).

@johanatan
Copy link
Author

Also, I think the STDIN support should be good to go (but it won't be an automatic merge either).

@disnet
Copy link
Member

disnet commented Jul 15, 2013

This is part of the next thing I'll be working on. Been stuck on trying to fix an annoying hygiene bug for the past few days which is involving a bit of code restructuring but as soon that's clear I'll look into this.

@johanatan
Copy link
Author

Were you able to integrate this yet? Also, how about the STDIN support?

@disnet
Copy link
Member

disnet commented Aug 7, 2013

Working on it :) It's public in the syntax-case branch if you're interested in following along. Haven't done STDIN support. Did you work on that? Is that pull requestable?

@johanatan
Copy link
Author

It was the second commit in this pull request but you've changed the main entry up quite a but since then. However it's a trivial change so it should be easy to update.

@disnet
Copy link
Member

disnet commented Aug 7, 2013

Oh so sorry! I completely missed that. Yeah, I'll pull that in.

@disnet disnet reopened this Aug 7, 2013
@disnet disnet closed this Aug 7, 2013
disnet added a commit that referenced this pull request Aug 7, 2013
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants