This repository was archived by the owner on May 19, 2018. It is now read-only.
Update decorator grammar to match current spec - #353
Closed
bakkot wants to merge 1 commit into
Closed
Conversation
Member
|
Thanks, the current implementation of decorators is really old, and we probably do not want to change it anymore, but instead will create a new plugin for the new spec. So it might take some time, till we know how to continue with all the decorator changes. |
Contributor
Author
|
@danez Makes sense. Gonna go ahead and close this, but feel free to take the code and/or tests when that revision happens. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
2 participants
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The current decorators proposal only allows very specific productions in a decorator, not arbitrary AssignmentExpressions. This updates the grammar to match the spec.
Likely to break some code.
Ping @DrewML re: #236.