Allow generic type params in member expressions #57
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
It is definitely legal (and has always been valid) to do something like: ``` SomeType.someMember ``` This has a type on the left-hand side and a member access on the right-hand side. This grammar so far has been OK with that simple case, because all it knows is that there's an identifier on the left. However, this breaks down when we do the equally legal: ``` SomeGenericType<TypeParam>.someMember ``` because now this is _not_ an identifier on the left. To fix this, we allow a few specific forms of a `_type` in a navigation expression. The allowed types are exactly the ones that do not cause parsing ambiguities, because that handles the cases that seem to exist in real life.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
It is definitely legal (and has always been valid) to do something like:
This has a type on the left-hand side and a member access on the
right-hand side. This grammar so far has been OK with that simple case,
because all it knows is that there's an identifier on the left. However,
this breaks down when we do the equally legal:
because now this is not an identifier on the left. To fix this, we
allow a few specific forms of a
_typein a navigation expression. Theallowed types are exactly the ones that do not cause parsing
ambiguities, because that handles the cases that seem to exist in real
life.