Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Ruby: assign blocks (originally submitted by @tambeta) #1734

Merged
merged 3 commits into from
Apr 15, 2018

Conversation

masatake
Copy link
Member

Simplyfy the commits in #1732.

tambeta added 3 commits April 11, 2018 17:37
Assigning blocks' return values to variables is a common idiom in Ruby.
Fix the parser to take this into account.

(@masatake edits the original commit log.)
A test case assigning various blocks to variables, for exercising the
fix introduced in 6c90039.

(@masatake edits the original commit log.)
Extend block assignment parsing by allowing "shortcut assignment"
operators, e.g. `||=`, `+=`.

(The commit log is edited by @masatake.)
@tambeta
Copy link
Contributor

tambeta commented Apr 11, 2018

For some reason, the directory Units/parser-ruby.r/ruby-block-assign-shortcut.d/ has appeared. During development, I used Units/parser-ruby.r/ruby-block-assign-shortcut.b/ for known failing tests. A separate test case for shortcut assignment operators is no longer needed, since I implemented the extra logic and added to the existing test case. So this directory should be removed altogether.

@masatake masatake force-pushed the tambeta-ruby-assign-blocks branch from 6f68d07 to 68ea0f8 Compare April 11, 2018 11:54
@masatake
Copy link
Member Author

@tambeta, thank you. It seems that the last commit should be removed.
I removed 6f68d07 from this pull request.

@coveralls
Copy link

Coverage Status

Coverage increased (+0.02%) to 84.785% when pulling 68ea0f8 on masatake:tambeta-ruby-assign-blocks into 4fe1a60 on universal-ctags:master.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants