use template strings for generated code #599
Open
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
also includes small refactoring of dedent function for reuse, to keep multiline string indented in the source code without messing with the generated code
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
I changed all the generated code to use template strings because I think it makes it a little bit easier to see what's going on and make changes. The generated code is the exact same for all the tests, except for javascript where I added a missing semicolon and missing whitespace between an identifier and an &&, not that it really matters. One thing to note is that I dedent the multiline template string at runtime just to I can keep it two tabs over without messing up the generated code, which I think is better than the alternative. I also extracted out the common text in all the generated comments.
I know it's really just a matter of style. It seems that you avoid es6 stuff, which is a fine reason to reject this PR. I wasn't sure if the exclusion of "newer" JS features is still a deliberate choice today.