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

Fixes #218. Optional type void => shorthand #225

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2023
Merged

Fixes #218. Optional type void => shorthand #225

merged 1 commit into from
Jan 13, 2023

Conversation

STRd6
Copy link
Contributor

@STRd6 STRd6 commented Jan 13, 2023

No description provided.

@STRd6 STRd6 temporarily deployed to build January 13, 2023 00:04 — with GitHub Actions Inactive
Copy link
Collaborator

@edemaine edemaine left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This seems correct, though I find the notation a little uncomfortable. It makes me worry about whatever coming after => being treated as part of the type. But the tests show reasonable examples where it's not: following ) or ,s. So I guess it's cool, and the parser will parse the natural way.

I thought the suggestion was to allow types like => number, but I see that that already works.

Copy link
Collaborator

@edemaine edemaine left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Also, the more I think about this, the more it matches our existing function shorthand (which can have an empty block), so seems like a good idea.

I'm starting to wonder what -> type could mean...

@STRd6 STRd6 merged commit ac77cec into main Jan 13, 2023
@STRd6 STRd6 deleted the 218 branch January 13, 2023 02:36
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