Unnamed AST nodes that might be worth to change to named

[xixiaofinland]

Here are the unnamed nodes I need to traverse during formatting. The purpose is to list them for analysis to determine whether it makes sense to convert them into named nodes. This doesn't necessarily imply that a fix is required.

[xixiaofinland]

i++ v.s. i-- and ++i v.s. --i in update_expression can't be distinguished as the named node covers i only.

[aheber]

I'll see how it looks on a couple of these. I think I'm more likely to promote it to a named node and a field so that is can be obvious where the operator is in relation to the expression/identifier.

I'll report back.

[aheber]

Proposed change:

++i;
i++;

would now create a tree of

 expression_statement [3, 8] - [3, 12]
    update_expression [3, 8] - [3, 11]
      operator: update_operator [3, 8] - [3, 10]
      operand: identifier [3, 10] - [3, 11]
  expression_statement [4, 8] - [4, 12]
    update_expression [4, 8] - [4, 11]
      operand: identifier [4, 8] - [4, 9]
      operator: update_operator [4, 9] - [4, 11]

This gives a named node for update_operator and also applies named fields to both the operator and operand

[xixiaofinland]

looks decent!

[aheber]

This is available now.

[xixiaofinland]

confirm it works!

[xixiaofinland]

the ? and . in ref?.maybe and ref?.maybeNot() don't have associated named nodes.

[xixiaofinland]

excellent! R&R

[xixiaofinland]

pls let me know whenever this is implemented, so I can update my code. @aheber
no hurry.

[aheber]

Will do, I have the changes on my machine but haven't pushed up or published yet. Probably this weekend.

[aheber]

This is available now.

[xixiaofinland]

confirm it works!

[xixiaofinland]

accessor_declaration doesn't have named children nodes to break down get and ;.

example:

public class Me {
  public double MyReadWriteProp { get;  }
}

[aheber]

My thoughts were grab the new accessor name field and print it directly, check for a body named field, if it is there then print it, if it is absent then print a ;. You don't need to see or touch the ";" anonymous node in this case.

This should allow you not to worry about space between, unless I don't understand still.

[xixiaofinland]

@aheber what you proposed makes sense, we can go with this 👍

[aheber]

I think these changes made it into the latest batch. Give it a run and let me know if I missed anything.

[xixiaofinland]

I confirm this works!

[aheber]

Thanks for checking.