Merged
Conversation
Member
Author
|
cc @krassowski to not duplicate work. |
bcca648 to
8cf1701
Compare
The selection of the current expression was improperly finding an implicit tuple `a,b`, instead of trimming tosimply `b`. I also done a number of simplification of test cases.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
In progress work toward #14585
guarded eval strip leading characters until it find soemthing, this is problematic as
(1, x, becomes valid after 1 char strip:1, xis a tuple;So now we trim until it is valid an not a tuple.
This is still imperfect as things like
(1, a[" "].ywill be trimmed toy, while it should stop witha[" "].y?I think maybe we should back-propagate; build back up from
y, toa[" "].y, greedily until we get the last valid expression – skipping any unbalanced parentheses/quotes if we encounter imblanced.