Correctly parse \A (and others) inside %r{...} inside macros #6282
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
asterite
changed the title
RX14
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2018
sdogruyol
approved these changes
Jun 29, 2018
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Hopefully fixes #6180 (let's see what CI says)
The first commit fixes the direct issue:
%r(...)is being confused inside macros with a macro var%r... choosing%as the start of a macro var was an unfortunate decision...The second commit fixes a few other things:
|was missing as a delimiter in a few places (it might be worth to extract the list of delimiters into a constant, but it's a bit hard to use insidecasewhen other chars are involved in subsequent conditions, so if someone wants to improve the code later, please go ahead, but in a separate PR please)next_charafter, for example,%r: only onenext_charskipped the%but anotherrwas missing. This wasn't a big deal, but one spec in this PR would fail otherwise (so it was incorrect behaviour after all, just very hidden).