Michael137 wrote:
> @Michael137 I looked into adding the diagnostic you asked about and while the
> implementation is relatively straightforward, I'm even more convinced that I
> don't think it belongs there because it's a semantic rather than a syntax
> error.
>
> We can detect a scope followed by an alternative scope, i.e. something like
> `{{foo}|bar}` but what about something like `{foo|bar}`. Just like a scope,
> `foo` will always resolve, so technically `bar` is unreachable. Should we
> diagnose this too? And what about `{${frame.pc}||bar}`. The empty string
> between the two pipes will always resolve. In other words, I don't think this
> warrants special casing as there are plenty of other scenarios that trigger
> similar behavior that would be much harder to diagnose.
Ok thanks for giving it a shot. I agree it doesn't quite fit the existing
syntax diagnostics. We can always choose to revisit if this becomes a big point
of confusion for people
https://github.com/llvm/llvm-project/pull/137751
_______________________________________________
lldb-commits mailing list
lldb-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/lldb-commits
