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
proposal-pipe: Add support for ^^
and @@
topics
#13973
Conversation
3211175
to
00b43a0
Compare
^^
and @@
topics
This also allows expectPlugin and expectOnePlugin to give better error messages. For example: > This experimental syntax requires enabling the parser plugin "pipelineOperator". > This experimental syntax requires enabling the parser plugin ["pipelineOperator", {proposal: "hack", topicToken: "^^"}]. See babel#13973 (comment).
This also allows expectPlugin and expectOnePlugin to give better error messages. For example: > This experimental syntax requires enabling the parser plugin "pipelineOperator". > This experimental syntax requires enabling the parser plugin ["pipelineOperator", {proposal: "hack", topicToken: "^^"}]. See babel#13973 (comment).
This also allows expectPlugin and expectOnePlugin to give better error messages. For example: > This experimental syntax requires enabling the parser plugin "pipelineOperator". > This experimental syntax requires enabling the parser plugin ["pipelineOperator", {proposal: "hack", topicToken: "^^"}]. See babel#13973 (comment).
This also allows expectPlugin and expectOnePlugin to give better error messages. For example: > This experimental syntax requires enabling the parser plugin "pipelineOperator". > This experimental syntax requires enabling the parser plugin ["pipelineOperator", {proposal: "hack", topicToken: "^^"}]. See babel#13973 (comment).
00b43a0
to
4fea500
Compare
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.
Could you rebase this on top #13827? These two PRs conflict (because they both modify @
tokenizing), and we plan to merge both in the next minor 🙏
Actually, don't rebase this on top of that branch yet because I want to first see what happens with tc39/proposal-decorators#437 at the next tc39 meeting. |
@nicolo-ribaudo: The plenary approved the decorator changes away from |
It's not needed anymore, since without |
I’m working on resolving #13973 (comment). Do we need to add the new tokens to |
4fea500
to
c9584de
Compare
Yes, we need to add them to this list:
|
c9584de
to
91cb4b2
Compare
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.
Just one comment
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.
Look good to me with some paring nits.
e52460a
to
8101e2b
Compare
8101e2b
to
6668b73
Compare
Thanks for the work, everyone. I will try to work on deprecating the other topic tokens (except for |
This pull request adds support for experimental
^^
and@@
topic tokens for the pipe operator.I probably will make another pull request to deprecate all the other topicToken options after this gets merged, as per the recent November incubator meeting.
See also #13191, #13416, #13749. CC: @nicolo-ribaudo, @JLHwung, @tabatkins, @rbuckton, @mAAdhaTTah, @jridgewell, @sarahghp, @jamiebuilds.