Fix yet more fuzzing bugs #7510
Conversation
joshuawarner32
commented
Jan 14, 2025
joshuawarner32
commented
- Also handle tuple accessors for multiline string checking
- Fix a couple issues with multiline string literal formatting
- Fix negative float and non-base-10 literal patterns
- Force indent on where clause
- Make nodes more strongly normalizing to fix confusion with outdentability
- Move unit assignment handling to lifting phase
- Unify Alias and Annotation formatting
- Relax argument indentation requirements in closures
| ] where e | ||
| implements T | ||
| J : | ||
| [ |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Do we want to maintain superfluous newlines inside of empty collections?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's something that I'd like to propose changing at some point, yes - but that's ideally a separate PR
| @@ -0,0 +1,3 @@ | |||
| return # | |||
| s | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This seems to lose the record restructure?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
That's intentional (and was the behavior even prior to this PR). What's changing in this PR is that now we're not accidentally missing a case we should have been doing it in.
The intent was that early in the development of ! suffixes,users previously may have typed {} = foo! 1 2 3, in order to get around the requirement that all values are used. There was an effort to auto-upgrade any such usages via the formatter, since the assignment to the empty record was now implicit/fine with the next generation of puritty inference.
I'd be on board with re-opening the discussion of whether this "unit assignment removal" is actually pulling its weight (but again, separate discussion and separate PR I think).
| [ | ||
| ] # | ||
| where e | ||
| implements |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I feel like in other places implements is indented from the where when forced to a newline
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Right now, the only constraint is that in a where, everything after the original type ([] in this case) is indented further.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
(Definitely open to tweaking this!)
