Better type checking for visitor #437
Merged
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
this one next, please. |
markw65
force-pushed
the
visitor-types
branch
from
7876d0a to
484d322
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I noticed some of the checking was just
stringrather than the actual node types.This ensures that every node type is actually implemented in the visitor by checking that the set of "visited" types matches the set of declared types.
It looks like we could also just look at
ReturnType<typeof visit>which will beanyif we missed any node types in the visitor, andvoidotherwise. But it would be hard (I think) to generate a meaningful error beyond "not all the node types were handled".