You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
{{ message }}
This repository was archived by the owner on May 14, 2021. It is now read-only.
I know we closed #56, but I thought about it a bit and I think I could add support for it pretty simply.
You just use the already implemented babylon parser and then every time you hit a comment outside a TTL you check if it fits /stylelint-(?:enable|disable)/ if it does you add it to an array, and every time you encounter a TTL you inject all the comments you pushed to the array to the top of the TTL to be parsed, in that way it will also support someone later using stylelint-enable. This should handle all cases from the docs as we of course could just ignore stylelint-disable-(?:next-)?line as those should only be used within.
I think it would be quite a nice intuitive addition. I of course think so because I thought it would intuitively work like eslint, and I could see why others would think the same.
I'll probably submit a PR in the near future adding this in.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
I know we closed #56, but I thought about it a bit and I think I could add support for it pretty simply.
You just use the already implemented babylon parser and then every time you hit a comment outside a TTL you check if it fits
/stylelint-(?:enable|disable)/
if it does you add it to an array, and every time you encounter a TTL you inject all the comments you pushed to the array to the top of the TTL to be parsed, in that way it will also support someone later usingstylelint-enable
. This should handle all cases from the docs as we of course could just ignorestylelint-disable-(?:next-)?line
as those should only be used within.I think it would be quite a nice intuitive addition. I of course think so because I thought it would intuitively work like eslint, and I could see why others would think the same.
I'll probably submit a PR in the near future adding this in.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: