fixed issue #170, hopefully #176
Conversation
| @@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ | |||
| ] | |||
| } | |||
| { | |||
| 'begin': '\\b(class|struct)\\b\\s*([_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z0-9]*\\b)?+(\\s*:\\s*(public|protected|private)\\s*([_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z0-9]*\\b)((\\s*,\\s*(public|protected|private)\\s*[_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z0-9]*\\b)*))?' | |||
| 'begin': '\\b(class|struct)\\b\\s*([_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z0-9]*\\b)?+(\\s*:\\s*(public|protected|private|virtual)\\s*([_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z0-9]*\\b)((\\s*,\\s*(public|protected|private)\\s*[_A-Za-z][_A-Za-z0-9]*\\b)*))?' | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
You forgot to add virtual to the second time the public|protected|private list occurs.
|
What changes are necessary? |
|
As I said in the review, this will need specs before it can be merged. |
|
This change doesn't make sense. The original assignment of the Such an effort should be started with a failing/red spec that tests the correct, expected behavior. Once the grammar bug has been resolved, that spec should become green. Since it is likely less effort to start a fresh PR instead of rebasing this, and then starting over, I'm simply going to close this. If you want to help us out by fixing #170 properly, please open a new PR. Feel free to open it early with the failing spec, and I'm sure someone will be able to help you figure out how to properly resolve this bug. Thanks! 🙇 |
Fixed issue #170
#170
Added virtual keyword to storage.type.modfier's list.