Closed CalebLItalien closed 3 weeks ago
@livigwinnett @CalebLItalien how do you guys think we should handle signed/unsigned/constant initalizations? Should it be a field of a the Initalization variant or are we doing this a different way?
@tbreimer14 My thought for this was for 'SyntaxElement::Initialization' to not actually hold any information. It's children would be a 'Type', 'Identifier', and optionally (I think in the current implementation it needs to be made optional) an 'AssignedValue' that would have a singe child, a constant or variable.
Details
Now that we're switching to the C99 syntax,
SyntaxElement
and the parser will need to constructAST
's that are in line with this standard. This will involve adding someSyntaxElements
and removing others.Issue Type
Requirements
Parser
that are no longer relavantNotes
Please do NOT implement parser functions that are required for new tokens in this issue. This issue is just adding new
SyntaxElements
not implementing them all. See issues tagged withParser - <issue_name>
for the new functions that need to be implemented.