-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 789
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
Completion: fix qualified completion in sequence expressions #18111
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
❗ Release notes required
|
// It's a nested sequential expression. | ||
// Visit it, but make defaultTraverse do nothing, | ||
// since we're going to traverse its descendants ourselves. | ||
yield dive expr expr.Range (fun expr -> visitor.VisitExpr(path, traverseSynExpr path, (fun _ -> None), expr)) |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
expr1 is "dive"'d right below this call, and expr2 is handled via the recursive invocation => cannot see any impact from ommiting dive into the expr itself.
=> LGTM.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Does visitor.VisitExpr
still get called on expr
itself now though? Maybe it does and I'm just not awake yet :)
28016cd
to
6299e69
Compare
6299e69
to
886a003
Compare
886a003
to
8487881
Compare
This has been green for a while, but the release notes constantly need resolving conflicts. |
Yeah release notes conflicts can be annoying, tho we sometimes resolve them to keep PRs in shape :) This LGTM, I was just also wondering about what Brian mentioned above. |
Fixes #18033. I'm not entirely sure what the removed lines were intended to do, so maybe removing the reverts the fix introduced in #16882. The test added in #16882 passes for locally with this change.