Revert "Don't treat a colon in a conditional expression branch as part of an arrow function" #48940
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
…t of an arrow function (microsoft#47550)" This reverts commit 2dede20.
typescript-bot
added
Author: Team
For Milestone Bug
|
This PR is currently a plain revert, but I'm thinking it would be best to leave the tests in place, and add the tests from the three PRs in #48733 (comment). That way, we lock things in and then can see the diff in a future change. |
|
Restored the tests and added the ones from the other PR for #48733. |
DanielRosenwasser
approved these changes
May 3, 2022
sandersn
approved these changes
May 4, 2022
This was referenced May 4, 2022
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Reopens #16241
Fixes #48733 (by reverting what broke it)
#47550 breaks some code out in the wild that I didn't have tests for, and that's not good unless we explicitly decide to allow/disallow some specific syntax.
It's too close to 4.8's RC, and we haven't the decision as to how we want to solve the ambiguity, i.e. choosing one of the options listed in #48733 (comment).
Just revert my incomplete bugfix for now, with the expectation that this is reapplied with one of the three PRs above.