implied tokens create incomprehensible error messages

[RonnyPfannschmidt]

code like

foo a b:1

creates a incomprehensible error, cause the implied unexpected { is never explained as such

it would be much better if it reported that the implied { came after a and what tokens where expected

[TrevorBurnham]

Unable to replicate: http://coffeescript.org/#try:foo%20a%20b%3A1

[RonnyPfannschmidt]

my misstake, a should have been a string

http://coffeescript.org/#try:foo%20%27a%27%20b%3A1 exposes the problem

[TrevorBurnham]

Fair enough:

foo 'a' b:1

should be an error, but that error shouldn't say "Unexpected {", since there is no {.

Perhaps more generally, we could replace the message "Unexpected {" with "Unexpected object literal"... what does @michaelficarra think?

[michaelficarra]

Ummmmmmm. That sounds fine.

[michaelficarra]

Related: http://lambda-the-ultimate.org/node/4439

[vendethiel]

→ #1096
(and we now have a better error tracking)

And ... We're under 200 issues. Whew!

[epidemian]

And ... We're under 200 issues. Whew!

I was surprised to see so many CS notifications in my infox today, i thought it was another CS release merge/commit spree. But the closing of so many duplicated and outdated issues is a refreshing change. Thanks a lot for that, you're making the work of many others more pleasant 😄

For another numerical data point, if #2887 gets merged we'll be over 500 tests.

[vendethiel]

I was surprised to see so many CS notifications in my infox today

Sorry about that.

By the way, I might (I probably) have overclosed or misread things, then I'm sorry and I'll reopen asap ;).

[vendethiel]

See my comment :

→ #1096

[xixixao]

Wrong issue, my bad.