Parenthesize function at start of sequence #1057
Merged
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
The firstInStatement function was missing the first child of a SequenceExpression because it needs to check both the type of the parent *node* and the name of the parent *path element*, which are not the same in this case. This fix is a "minimal change" style; it should be correct even if it's not beautiful. A cleaner fix would probably involve changing the way the loop finds nodes.
|
As far as I can tell, this seems safe. I'll merge it soon unless @benjamn objects. |
|
Looks like, it's related to #1061 |
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
The firstInStatement function was missing the first child of a
SequenceExpression because it needs to check both the type of the parent
node and the name of the parent path element, which are not the same
in this case.
This fix is a "minimal change" style; it should be correct even if it's
not beautiful. A cleaner fix would probably involve changing the way
the loop finds nodes.