Support arrow functions without a block statement #421
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
|
LGTM. Kick me in a couple of days, i'll merge & publish if no more objections. |
|
@puzrin Ping 😃 |
|
Sorry for silence. Published new version with your fixes. Thanks for efforts and patience! |
|
This is awesome, thank you |
|
Converting |
This was referenced Mar 9, 2021
This was referenced Mar 16, 2021
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
#393 supports arrow functions, but will fail when using arrow functions without block statements, like the one mentioned by @julien-c in #389:
Like @kivlor pointed out already, there's no constructor for
ArrowFunction, so this is a bit of a workaround. Personally, I'd rather see this resolved with asafe-eval.