Fix #3932: ANSI color leak in repl #4462
Conversation
OlivierBlanvillain
force-pushed
the
fix-3932
branch
from
85cc876 to
a73199c
Compare
|
I believe the REPL had its syntax highlighting mechanism before we introduced colors in Printer. I think a better fix is to make the REPL only relies on the mechanism from the Printers (i.e. replace call to |
|
Unless we want to stop highlighting code "as it's been written", we won't be able to get ride of the REPL syntax highlighting. Given thaz we have two syntax highlighters, it's not clear to me what we would gain by using the one from RefinedPrinter over the REPL one. |
|
The syntax highlighter from the printers is supposed to be more fined grained (it knows the semantic of what it is printing) and is also configurable (using the compiler options). The issue in #3932 is because we are currently calling You are right for code "as it's been written", we have to keep using |
Side-note: we could use the regular Parser to handle this String. Our parser is supposed to recover from errors (needed for the IDE to work well), so it could also work for syntax highlighting as you type in the REPL. |
| @@ -0,0 +1,2 @@ | |||
| scala> def f(erased a: Int): Int = ??? | |||
| def f(erased a: Int): Int | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Add a test case for erased implicit
| @@ -169,7 +169,9 @@ class PlainPrinter(_ctx: Context) extends Printer { | |||
| "<noprefix>" | |||
| case tp: MethodType => | |||
| changePrec(GlobalPrec) { | |||
| (if (tp.isImplicitMethod) "(implicit " else "(") ~ paramsText(tp) ~ | |||
| ("(" + (if (tp.isImplicitMethod) "implicit " else "") | |||
| + (if (tp.isErasedMethod) "erased " else "") | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Print erased first. erased implicit seems to be better than implicit erased based on the feedback I have received in the past.
OlivierBlanvillain
force-pushed
the
fix-3932
branch
from
a73199c to
da0b6ba
Compare
|
@OlivierBlanvillain is this still a WIP? |
|
It's good to go! |
No description provided.