Formatting changes semantics (removes ;)

[lmshk]

In situations involving macros, removing a trailing ; sometimes changes semantics. For example, in

using Catalyst
net = @network_component net begin
    r, X --> Y
end
net′ = extend(net, @network_component (@species Z(t);))

removing the ; actually makes this code invalid.

Runic should keep the ; in cases like this.

[fredrikekre]

Thanks for the report. The fault is that we first have a [block] node but without the ; it becomes a [parens] node. This doesn't matter unless in a macro context but probably better to stick to the node type that was in the source consistently.

julia> JuliaSyntax.parseall(JuliaSyntax.GreenNode, "(@a;)")
     1:5      │[toplevel]
     1:5      │  [block]
     1:1      │    (
     2:3      │    [macrocall]
     2:2      │      @
     3:3      │      MacroName          ✔
     4:4      │    ;
     5:5      │    )


julia> JuliaSyntax.parseall(JuliaSyntax.GreenNode, "(@a)")
     1:4      │[toplevel]
     1:4      │  [parens]
     1:1      │    (
     2:3      │    [macrocall]
     2:2      │      @
     3:3      │      MacroName          ✔
     4:4      │    )

[pfitzseb]

JuliaFormatter re-parses the output after formatting to check whether it's equivalent. I'd suggest doing that here as well, just as a basic sanity check (I don't think the overhead should be prohibitive).

[fredrikekre]

Yea, locally I reparse to check that the output is at least parseable, but I don't compare the expressions. It doesn't seem trivial though(?) because some changes can modify the tree without the meaning I think? E.g. if you insert a ; before kwargs in a call site.

julia> JuliaSyntax.parseall(JuliaSyntax.GreenNode, "f(a = 1)")
     1:8      │[toplevel]
     1:8      │  [call]
     1:1      │    Identifier           ✔
     2:2      │    (
     3:7      │    [=]
     3:3      │      Identifier         ✔
     4:4      │      Whitespace
     5:5      │      =
     6:6      │      Whitespace
     7:7      │      Integer            ✔
     8:8      │    )


julia> JuliaSyntax.parseall(JuliaSyntax.GreenNode, "f(; a = 1)")
     1:10     │[toplevel]
     1:10     │  [call]
     1:1      │    Identifier           ✔
     2:2      │    (
     3:9      │    [parameters]
     3:3      │      ;
     4:4      │      Whitespace
     5:9      │      [=]
     5:5      │        Identifier       ✔
     6:6      │        Whitespace
     7:7      │        =
     8:8      │        Whitespace
     9:9      │        Integer          ✔
    10:10     │    )

[pfitzseb]

Oh, yeah, good point. I guess there needs to be a "semantic normalization" pass that doesn't act on macro inputs. Not actually sure how JuliaFormatter handles that...

[fredrikekre]

It also doesn't seem feasible to skip all formatting except whitespace inside macros even if a macro can observe it. Then you couldn't format a function with an @inline annotation or a struct with @kwdef etc...

[fredrikekre]

Thanks for the report, this is fixed in the patch linked above.

This is comparable to (1) vs (1,) where the trailing comma is also important (this case was already handled correctly though).