Conversation
|
I've run this branch version and can confirm that it working fine. Transform command is working well. |
Jeehut
left a comment
Jeehut
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
HI @noppefoxwolf, thank you very much for this PR!
I've reviewed your code and found some issues or had some questions. Please handle them, then I'll test this myself and would be happy to merge! 👍
|
|
||
| guard | ||
| let memberAccessExpression = functionCallExpression.child(at: 0) as? MemberAccessExprSyntax, | ||
| let memberAccessExpression = functionCallExpressionIterator.next()?.as(MemberAccessExprSyntax.self), // 0 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
What does the // 0 mean here? Please be more spcific like // index 0. And why is .next() here the same as child(at: 0) before?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Because child(at:) was removed from FunctionCallExprSyntax.
But I think too that is not readable easily.
I'll fix using another way.
| else { | ||
| return super.visit(functionCallExpression) | ||
| } | ||
| _ = functionCallExpressionIterator.next() // 1 |
| } | ||
| var functionCallArgumentListIterator = functionCallArgumentList.children.makeIterator() | ||
|
|
||
|
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Please never use two newlines, one is sufficient.
| } | ||
|
|
||
| var translationsFunctionCallArgumentIterator = translationsFunctionCallArgument.children.makeIterator() | ||
| _ = translationsFunctionCallArgumentIterator.next() // 0 |
|
|
||
| var translationsFunctionCallArgumentIterator = translationsFunctionCallArgument.children.makeIterator() | ||
| _ = translationsFunctionCallArgumentIterator.next() // 0 | ||
| _ = translationsFunctionCallArgumentIterator.next() // 1 |
|
|
||
| if let translationsDictionaryElementList = translationsDictionaryExpression.child(at: 1) as? DictionaryElementListSyntax { | ||
| var translationsDictionaryExpressionIterator = translationsDictionaryExpression.children.makeIterator() | ||
| _ = translationsDictionaryExpressionIterator.next() // 0 |
|
Closing this in favor of #172 where I will fix the leftover comments and merge. Thank you very much @noppefoxwolf for you work here! 👍 |
3 participants
No description provided.