Fix bug parsing unary subtypes with newlines #393
Merged
Conversation
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
In expressions like `"a +\n\n<:"` the presence of `peek(ps, skip_newlines=true)` was inconsistent with the use of `bump()` without `skip_newlines`. It seems that we didn't need skip_newlines at all in parse_unary_subtype, so do this to be consistent with parsing of other operators.
Codecov ReportAll modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅
Additional details and impacted files@@ Coverage Diff @@
## main #393 +/- ##
=======================================
Coverage 96.58% 96.58%
=======================================
Files 14 14
Lines 4187 4187
=======================================
Hits 4044 4044
Misses 143 143 ☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry. |
c42f
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Dec 6, 2023
In expressions like `"a +\n\n<:"` the presence of `peek(ps, skip_newlines=true)` was inconsistent with the use of `bump()` without `skip_newlines`. It seems that we didn't need skip_newlines at all in parse_unary_subtype, so do this to be consistent with parsing of other operators.
c42f
added a commit
to JuliaLang/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 17, 2025
…l#393) In expressions like `"a +\n\n<:"` the presence of `peek(ps, skip_newlines=true)` was inconsistent with the use of `bump()` without `skip_newlines`. It seems that we didn't need skip_newlines at all in parse_unary_subtype, so do this to be consistent with parsing of other operators.
topolarity
pushed a commit
to JuliaLang/julia
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 14, 2025
…l#393) In expressions like `"a +\n\n<:"` the presence of `peek(ps, skip_newlines=true)` was inconsistent with the use of `bump()` without `skip_newlines`. It seems that we didn't need skip_newlines at all in parse_unary_subtype, so do this to be consistent with parsing of other operators.
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
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.
In expressions like
"a +\n\n<:"the presence ofpeek(ps, skip_newlines=true)was inconsistent with the use ofbump()withoutskip_newlines. It seems that we didn't need skip_newlines at all in parse_unary_subtype, so do this to be consistent with parsing of other operators.Fix #392