emit pseudo-keyword for events. #3538
Conversation
chriseth
force-pushed
the
emitEvents
branch
2 times, most recently
from
6bc74a0
to
2829264
Compare
|
Looks good! Are there any plans to make "emit" a proper keyword for 0.5.x? |
|
@federicobond yes, of course. |
docs/contracts.rst
Outdated
| // for `Deposit` to be called. | ||
| Deposit(msg.sender, _id, msg.value); | ||
| // Events are emitted using `emit` followed by | ||
| // a call of the event. Any such call |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
How about "followed by the name of the event" ?
libsolidity/analysis/TypeChecker.cpp
Outdated
| _emit.eventCall().annotation().kind != FunctionCallKind::FunctionCall || | ||
| dynamic_cast<FunctionType const&>(*type(_emit.eventCall().expression())).kind() != FunctionType::Kind::Event | ||
| ) | ||
| m_errorReporter.typeError(_emit.eventCall().expression().location(), "Expression has to be an event."); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You are using "event call" elsewhere, perhaps worth using the same for consistency.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Or how about going with "event invocation" in all places?
| std::tie(arguments, names) = parseFunctionCallArguments(); | ||
| eventCallNodeFactory.markEndPosition(); | ||
| nodeFactory.markEndPosition(); | ||
| expectToken(Token::RParen); |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Expect checks the current position and is not reading the next token, right? If so markEndPosition should be correct otherwise not.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I had a look at the --ask output and it is fine this way.
|
Apart from those comments it looks good. |
|
I believe the most appropriate name for this new word would be |
|
The issue #2877 would be a better place to discuss. |
Fixes #2877