-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 108
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
fix: remove the destructuring fields quantity check in interpreter #969
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Let's add the previously failing test case from the linked issue
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Regarding issue
@Gusarich Let's finish this PR asap, please |
ea99e54
to
4b9e402
Compare
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, I've updated the docs to include ..
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Tests LGTM. 👍
Co-authored-by: Anton Trunov <[email protected]>
b4b7a3f
to
623413b
Compare
@anton-trunov have a look please! |
Looks good to me. Let's merge the current version and then make one more iteration for v1.6 with the generalized destructuring, so we can do nested destructs |
* remove the destructuring fields quantity check in interpreter * feat(typechecker): check variables count
Issue
Closes #968.
Checklist
[ ] I have added tests to demonstrate the contribution is correctly implemented: this usually includes both positive and negative tests, showing the happy path(s) and featuring intentionally broken cases