-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 352
Develop -> Master #395
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
Develop -> Master #395
Conversation
fast attempt for issues with multiple declarations
line following arrow indentation
Fix lambda definitions in class definitions
#293 this will detect the start and end parentheses,allowing statements with parentheses to come after the condition parens.This regex can detect with up to 4 levels of nesting.
Adding [ and ] to jsFuncArgDestructuring
simplifies the parentheses handling
Fixing comments in ES6 Class declarations
the previous pr is being difficult, sorry
Operator first support,including ternary,dot etc.
This is until we can figure out how to properly match all the crazy use cases.
Temporarily disabled jsArrowFuncArgs with parens
I basically just copied what Tim Pope has done for his projects, an example can be seen here: https://github.com/tpope/vim-pathogen#license
Adding a license note to the README
Improve one line scope
Template string indentation
Improved Lambda Argument Handling
In progress but here are the effects so far ``` if ( a == b && c == d && e == f || g == h || i == j ) { a = b + c - d; } ``` as opposed to this which would indent everything following it: ``` if ( a == b && c == d && e == f || g == h || i == j ) { a = b + c - d; } ```
spanning multiple lines detection
Also I wonder if we should perhaps increment the version number, and perhaps create an official release tag with this. I think things are pretty solid once this gets merged in. Maybe we make it version |
would be fine with me,with all the changes we have this might be a good time,also lots of old issues have been fixed. |
Move jsDocTag @file to a different jsDocTag group
[-+] not by another
Fix jsDocParam
* De-prioritized the not on regexes * Added vim-plug installation instructions * Improved header hierarchy * Improved configuration variables documentation * Removed some deprecated instructions * Tweaks misc content
b:javascript_fold is no longer used anymore. Folding is done through `set foldmethod=syntax`
Last minute tweaks
other arrow syntaxes
This should fix #320
Fix JSDoc record matching
Not using groups seems to help a bunch with performance
I think these matchers where for functions, and from another era of project ownership. They added a TON of performance overhead, and I could never replicate a scenario where they matched.
We had some special matching for Intl and certain submethods. It seems needless to do this for the following reasons: * The look behind added massive overhead (especially since the rule was not contained) * We never do any special matching for any other global objects, so why these?
Shaved off some average time by removing the groups, which weren't really needed to begin with
The optimizations it provides really doesn't seem to help much and usually just results in weird syntax matching errors unless you run `syntax sync fromstart`
Another match that turns up pretty high in the list of total time spent under `syntime`
Ok so all the major fixes have been merged in. Do we want to include the performance improvements or not? If not, I'll just add a tweak to the README to point out a new version and we can go ahead and merge this into |
With the current performance I get I'm happy to just use the ones you already made yesterday.We can try and figure out some more using zs, vim regex is just kind of complicated. Otherwise merging sounds good |
Performance Improvements
Alright, I set the version number in the readme to 1.0.0 |
Spectacular work on this release @amadeus, @bounceme, @davidchambers, and others! Thanks so much for the effort. |
Aww shucks, thanks! 😄 |
Given we had some pretty big issues in
master
with the last release, I'd like us to get this merged in ASAP.Although I'd like to at least get #394 and #392 merged in first.
I'd still like some more time to test the #391 before merging that in, so I say we still wait. Plus I am keeping it up to date with
develop
as we merge things in.