-
schneems authored
I previously left a comment stating I didn't know why a certain method existed. In investigating the code in `CaptureCodeContext#capture_before_after_kws` I found that it was added as to give a slightly less noisy output. The docs for AroundBlockScan#capture_neighbor_context only describe keywords as being a primary concern. I modified that code to only include lines that are keywords or ends. This reduces the output noise even more. This allows me to remove that `start_at_next_line` method. One weird side effect of the prior logic is it would cause this code to produce this output: ``` class OH def hello def hai end end ``` ``` 1 class OH > 2 def hello 4 def hai 5 end 6 end ``` But this code to produce this output: ``` class OH def hello def hai end end ``` ``` 1 class OH > 2 def hello 4 end 5 end ``` Note the missing `def hai`. The only difference between them is that space. With this change, they're now both consistent. https://github.com/ruby/syntax_suggest/commit/4a54767a3e
schneems authoredI previously left a comment stating I didn't know why a certain method existed. In investigating the code in `CaptureCodeContext#capture_before_after_kws` I found that it was added as to give a slightly less noisy output. The docs for AroundBlockScan#capture_neighbor_context only describe keywords as being a primary concern. I modified that code to only include lines that are keywords or ends. This reduces the output noise even more. This allows me to remove that `start_at_next_line` method. One weird side effect of the prior logic is it would cause this code to produce this output: ``` class OH def hello def hai end end ``` ``` 1 class OH > 2 def hello 4 def hai 5 end 6 end ``` But this code to produce this output: ``` class OH def hello def hai end end ``` ``` 1 class OH > 2 def hello 4 end 5 end ``` Note the missing `def hai`. The only difference between them is that space. With this change, they're now both consistent. https://github.com/ruby/syntax_suggest/commit/4a54767a3e
Loading