search

michaelficarra / CoffeeScriptRedux

:sweat: rewrite of the CoffeeScript compiler with proper compiler design principles and a focus on robustness and extensibility
https://michaelficarra.github.com/CoffeeScriptRedux/
BSD 3-Clause "New" or "Revised" License
1.84k stars 111 forks source link

update syntastic #56

Open michaelficarra opened 12 years ago

michaelficarra commented 12 years ago

https://github.com/scrooloose/syntastic/blob/master/syntax_checkers/coffee/coffee.vim

--- Want to back this issue? **[Post a bounty on it!](https://www.bountysource.com/issues/85537-update-syntastic?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F33145&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github)** We accept bounties via [Bountysource](https://www.bountysource.com/?utm_campaign=plugin&utm_content=tracker%2F33145&utm_medium=issues&utm_source=github).
brendanjerwin commented 11 years ago

Hey, I did some work on the syntax checker to get coffee lint support a while back. What needs to change for redux? Maybe I can get it done?

michaelficarra commented 11 years ago

It should be easy, actually. You pretty much just need to update the file pointed to above to use my compiler's flags instead of the original's. And remove coffeelint. Then just open a pull request and let it sit until this hits 2.0.

brendanjerwin commented 11 years ago

Why does coffeelint need to be removed?

michaelficarra commented 11 years ago

coffeelint uses the old compiler, which fails on many perfectly valid constructs. Nested interpolations, for instance.

brendanjerwin commented 11 years ago

Ok, as of now, the coffeelint and coffeescript compiler checkers are split apart.

Do you think it'll be reasonable/possible to make the coffeescript compiler one automatically sniff out if redux is present?

Maybe a --version test or something?

I'd like to make it "just work" without needing to keep a long-running pull-request up to date.

michaelficarra commented 11 years ago

Testing --version sounds like an excellent idea.

brendanjerwin commented 11 years ago

Ok, I'll test for 2.0 in the version output and change the call accordingly.

michaelficarra commented 11 years ago

Make sure it doesn't misidentify 1.2.0.