Closed aibaars closed 2 years ago
Can the CodeQL generator be adjusted to use the field name (operator
) that is associated with the operator? Making the operator a named node doesn't fit the general pattern of using anonymous nodes for simple strings that represent punctuation/operator tokens, which is in use in a lot of other places.
Can the CodeQL generator be adjusted to use the field name (
operator
) that is associated with the operator? Making the operator a named node doesn't fit the general pattern of using anonymous nodes for simple strings that represent punctuation/operator tokens, which is in use in a lot of other places.
Ok, fair point. We're introducing names for other tokens already such as nil
, self
, false
, but you're right there are none for operators.
Would it be OK to introduce an anonymous rule _call_operator
that gets re-used in the various places? That gives a slightly nicer node-types.json
. The node-types.json
is the input to our generator, and the more concise it is the better code we can generate.
Having named operators helps the CodeQL dbscheme generator to produce better output.
Checklist: