Fix: Go-to definition on recursive binary operators #126
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
julienduchesne
force-pushed
the
julienduchesne/fix-recursive-binaries
branch
from
c5dcce5
to
a7e52b1
Compare
julienduchesne
changed the base branch from
main
to
julienduchesne/vendor-grafonnet
Duologic
approved these changes
Sep 7, 2023
Included the grafonnet example where the bug was identified as a testcase From now on, we can use grafonnet to build test cases
julienduchesne
force-pushed
the
julienduchesne/fix-recursive-binaries
branch
from
a7e52b1
to
dcf5225
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Depends on #127
It was only looking through a single level of binaries, so the following didn't work:
obj1 + obj2 + obj3which in the AST is:binary(binary(obj1, obj2), obj3)