This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 15, 2022. It is now read-only.
Repository navigation
This repository was archived by the owner on Dec 15, 2022. It is now read-only.
BigInt is rendered as error #578
Description
Prerequisites
- Put an X between the brackets on this line if you have done all of the following:
- Reproduced the problem in Safe Mode: http://flight-manual.atom.io/hacking-atom/sections/debugging/#using-safe-mode
- Followed all applicable steps in the debugging guide: http://flight-manual.atom.io/hacking-atom/sections/debugging/
- Checked the FAQs on the message board for common solutions: https://discuss.atom.io/c/faq
- Checked that your issue isn't already filed: https://github.com/issues?utf8=✓&q=is%3Aissue+user%3Aatom
- Checked that there is not already an Atom package that provides the described functionality: https://atom.io/packages
Description
Here is an example of the error:
const veryLargeInt = 100n ** 200n;This without bigint:
const veryLargeInt = 100 ** 200;
Activity
thomasjo commentedon Jun 4, 2018
Thanks for the report!
Because BigInt is still a draft proposal, I'm going to close this issue. Once the proposal gets accepted, feel free to leave a comment requesting the issue be re-opened, or open a new issue.
NN--- commentedon Nov 14, 2018
BigInt has already reached Stage3 which means it will be likely to be accepted.
michaelficarra commentedon Nov 4, 2019
@thomasjo BigInts still aren't supported by this project, though they are officially part of the language now. See https://tc39.es/ecma262/#sec-bigint-objects. Please re-open.
thomasjo commentedon Nov 5, 2019
@michaelficarra I'm no longer involved in the Atom project, so I cannot really champion for this issue getting resolved. I'll reopen it however, in hopes that someone might submit a PR to resolve it.
lkashef commentedon Nov 12, 2019
There is a PR that seems to fix this issue #588
lkashef commentedon Nov 19, 2019
This issue is no longer reproducible, it seems that tree-sitter/tree-sitter-javascript#93 fixed the issue, if you are able to reproduce, please feel free to open a new issue with the proper template and reproduction steps.
michaelficarra commentedon Nov 19, 2019
GitHub linguist points to this repository as the syntax highlighting provider for JavaScript: https://github.com/github/linguist/blob/master/vendor/README.md
They currently reference d668216, or version
0.132.0, as a dependency. @lkashef Are you saying that support for BigInt was added between then and the latest release,0.133.1, and if they bump the version, they will get that support?edit: It looks like the tree-sitter dependency did not change between these versions: see https://github.com/atom/language-javascript/blob/v0.132.0/package.json and https://github.com/atom/language-javascript/blob/v0.133.1/package.json.
edit again: It seems like GitHub linguist uses the
grammars/javascript.csonfile in this repo, which still requires bigint support.lkashef commentedon Nov 19, 2019
Hey @michaelficarra, you are right atom/language-javascript is the syntax highlighting provider in atom for Javascript and this repository depends on tree-sitter/tree-sitter-javascript.
The
BigIntsupport was added totree-sitter-javascriptin v0.13.10 in 18 December 2018, on the next day we bumpedtree-sitter-javascriptversion in atom/language-javascript, and atom stable v1.33.1 was released on the same day with the up-to-dateatom/language-javascriptversion 0.129.19.Now, if you are able to reproduce this error following the steps instructed in the issue template, we can definitely take a look.
Aerijo commentedon Nov 19, 2019
@lkashef They are referring to a different project that depends on the TextMate grammar specifically. AFAIK, Atom policy is to only support Tree-sitter when it exists, and encourage anyone depending on the TextMate grammar to maintain their own fork.
lkashef commentedon Nov 20, 2019
@Aerijo Based on that PR #588, I think the author is referring to Github since it uses the same atom's package to provide syntax highlighting for javascript. So it seems valid to me, I was just missing the context.
lkashef commentedon Nov 21, 2019
Fixed by #588