This repository was archived by the owner on Jun 23, 2025. It is now read-only.
feat!: support class static blocks #80
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or 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
36 tasks
nzakas
approved these changes
Nov 10, 2021
Member
nzakas
left a comment
nzakas
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
LGTM. I agree that a major version bump makes sense.
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This PR adds new
"class-static-block"scopes. EachStaticBlocknode creates a"class-static-block"scope.https://github.com/tc39/proposal-class-static-block
Notes:
arguments. However, referencing thoseargumentsis a parse-time error, so I didn't add those variables to class static block scopes because they have no observable effects. This is consistent with class field initializers, we didn't addargumentsthere either.Scope#isThisMaterialized, is not updated."class-static-block"type could be to use the existing"function"type, which might be more practical for some use cases, but also confusing for others. I think it's better to introduce a new scope type.I tagged this as a breaking change as I'd like to suggest that we bump major version. While this is a new syntax for
eslint-scope, parsers (including Espree) already support this syntax, and inserting a new scope where it didn't exist before looks like a relatively big change in scope analysis (from wrong to right, but still).