Refine procedure declaration checks - #147
Merged
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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
The switch to a permissive boundary check for detecting possible procedure declarations was right, but various heuristics from before were defeating the improvement, resulting in error spans being anchored to the wrong token. Add test coverage for these scenarios and then refine the order in which tests are applied.
Also fixes masking that was incorrectly happening if a
"was encountered in descriptive prose. Such a character does not begin a literal as those only occur in expressions.Finishes with a considerable number of defensive and correctness improvements to address corner cases encountered during review.