Trying to use nesting rules via postcss, but getting warnings below. What rules I need to add in stylelint file to fix these warnings?
Here is the css:
.count-sec {
height: 520px;
& p {
color:#fff;
margin: 0;
}
}
Warnings:
Expected a trailing semicolon (declaration-block-trailing-semicolon) [stylelint]
Expected newline before "}" of a multi-line block (block-closing-brace-newline-before) [stylelint]
Expected a trailing semicolon (declaration-block-trailing-semicolon) [stylelint]
You should change your rule declaration-block-trailing-semicolon become "always"
(https://stylelint.io/user-guide/rules/declaration-block-trailing-semicolon/)
Expected newline before "}" of a multi-line block (block-closing-brace-newline-before) [stylelint]
You should change your rule block-closing-brace-newline-before become "always"
(https://stylelint.io/user-guide/rules/block-closing-brace-newline-before/)
Related
I want to insert a line at the beginning of several C functions that are formatted the same. I suspect sed is the way to do this but I have limited sed knowledge. Thanks.
void func (any arbitrary list of parameters)
{
void func (any arbitrary list of parameters)
{
myNewInsertedLineHere
If the opening braces for functions begin on the first column and if they are the only braces that are in the first column (i.e. if you place opening braces for structs and enums at the end of a line), you can use:
sed -e 's/^{/{\n MYNEWLINE;/g' orig.c > edited.c
This seems to work in a quick test, but usual warnings and disclaimers apply.
Edit: As pointed out in the comments, not only functions have curly braces in the first column, so some context is needed. We can use another tool from the 70s, awk:
awk 'BEGIN {split("typedef union struct enum", a); \
for (i in a) skip[a[i]] = 1;}; \
{print; if (/^{/ && !(last in skip)) print " MYFIRSTLINE();"; \
if (NF > 0) last = $1; }' orig.c > edited.c
That's a one-liner in theory, but it might be better in a separate file, say first.awk:
#!/usr/bin/awk -f
BEGIN {
split("typedef union struct enum", a);
for (i in a) skip[a[i]] = 1;
};
{
print;
if (/^{/ && !(last in skip))
print " MYFIRSTLINE();";
if (NF > 0) last = $1;
}
Then you can call the script with
awk -f first.awk orig.c > edited.c
or, after chmodding executing permissions as
first.awk orig.c > edited.c
Of course, the same strategy:
print every line;
when there is a brace in the first column and the context isn't a type or variable definition, print the additional content;
save the first word to determine the context for the next line
can be implemented in any other scripting language, too.
A program is almost ever too complex for such simple rules. You said in title closing paren, newline, opening curly brace. What do you want to do with:
if testfunction(val)
{
It follows the criteria but is not a function definition.
That being said, the following sedscript should do the trick, it even cares for optional tabs or spaces around the {
/)[ \t\r]*$/ {
n
s/^[ \t]*}[ \t\r]*$/&/
t add
b end
:add
a\
\
end
}
In english, it reads:
look for a line ending with right paren
look at next line
try to replace a line containing only an opening curly brace (apart from white spaces) by itself
if substitution matched add an empty line
I am a new to flex. I have just written a sample code to detect multi line comments using a flex program. Now I want to improve the code. I want to detect unfinished and ill formed comments in the code. for example: a comment beginning with /* without an ending */ is an unfinished comment and by ill formed comment I mean the comment is not properly formed, say, an EOF appears inside the comment etc. What I have to add in my code to check these things? My sample code is as follows:
%x COMMENT_MULTI_LINE
%{
char* commentStart;
%}
%%
[\n\t\r ]+ {
/* ignore whitespace */ }
<INITIAL>"/*" {
commentStart = yytext;
BEGIN(COMMENT_MULTI_LINE);
}
<COMMENT_MULTI_LINE>"*/" {
char* comment = strndup(commentStart, yytext + 2 - commentStart);
printf("'%s': was a multi-line comment\n", comment);
free(comment);
BEGIN(INITIAL);
}
<COMMENT_MULTI_LINE>. {
}
<COMMENT_MULTI_LINE>\n {
}
%%
int main(int argc, char *argv[]){
yylex();
}
The flex manual section on using <<EOF>> is quite helpful as it has exactly your case as an example, and their code can also be copied verbatim into your flex program.
As it explains, when using <<EOF>> you cannot place it in a normal regular expression pattern. It can only be proceeded by a the name of a state. In your code you are using a state to indicate you are inside a comment. This state is called COMMENT_MULTI. All you have to do is put that in front of the <<EOF>> marker and give it an action to do:
<COMMENT_MULTI><<EOF>> {printf("Unterminated Comment: %s\n", yytext);
yyterminate();}
The special action function yyterminate() tells flex that you have recognised the <<EOF>> and that it marks the end-of-input for your program.
I have tested this, and it works in your code. (And with multi-line strings also).
Structure of my file is :
`pragma TOKEN1_NAME TOKEN1_VALUE
`pragma TOKEN2_NAME TOKEN2_VALUE
`pragma TOKEN3_NAME TOKEN3_VALUE
`pragma TOKEN4_NAME TOKEN4_VALUE
VHDL_TEXT{
// A valid VHDL text goes here.
}
`pragma TOKEN2_NAME TOKEN2_VALUE
VHDL_TEXT{
// VHDL text
}
I need to pass VHDL text as it is to the output file.I can do that by making a default rule at the end of lex file as:
Rule: . { append_to_buffer(*yytext); }
I also have list of other rules in my Lex file to deal with the tokens.
The problem i am having is how to deal with the situation in which VHDL text is also containing some of the tokens that can be recognized by the Lex rules?
In other words ,i want to disable detecting further valid token one i found the text i am interesting in and again start detection once it is over.
As rici points out indirectly you need to be able to distinguish between occurrences of the trailing delimiter '}' for your rule and occurrences of the right curly bracket in a valid VHDL design specification or portion.
See IEEE Std 1076-2008, 15.3 Lexical elements, separators, and delimiters where we find that '{' and '}' are not used as delimiters in VHDL.
They are other special characters (15.2 Character set, using ISO/IEC 8859-1:1998) requiring handling where graphic characters may appear.
graphic_character ::=
basic_graphic_character | lower_case_letter | other_special_character
These include extended identifiers (15.4.3), character literals (15.6), string literals (15.7), bit string literals (15.8), comments (15.9) and tool directives (15.11).
There's a need to identify these lexical elements within the production otherwise identifying '}' as a delimiter for the rule.
Only one tool directive is currently defined (24.1 Protect tool directives) wherein the use of the two curly bracket characters would be contained in VHDL lexical elements. All other uses in lexical elements are directly delimited. (And you could disclaim tool directive support, in VHDL they basically also invoke separate lexical, syntactical and semantic analysis).
Essentially you need to operate a VHDL lexical analyzer for traversing 'VHDL text' where you're rule delimiter right curly bracket will stand out like a sore thumb (as an exception, serving as the closing delimiter for VHDL text).
And about now you'd get the idea life would be easier if you could deal with VHDL by reference instead if possible. Your mechanism is as complex as including tool directives in VHDL (which can be done with a preprocessor as could your VHDL text).
This is in response to the vhdl tag added by FUZxxl.
When you have essentially different languages in a source file that you need to deal with that have clear demarcation tokens (like your VHDL_TEXT markers) that can be easily recognized by the lexer, the easiest thing to do is to use flex exclusive start states (%x). In your case, you would do something like:
%{
/* some global vars for holding aux state */
static int brace_depth;
static Buffer vhdl_text;
%}
%x VHDL
%%
.. normal lexer rules for your non-vhdl stuff
VHDL_TEXT[ \t]*{ { brace_depth = 1;
BufferClear(vhdl_text);
BEGIN(VHDL); }
<VHDL>"{" { BufferAppend(vhdl_text, *yytext);
brace_depth++; }
<VHDL>"}" { if (--brace_depth == 0) {
BEGIN(INITIAL);
yylval.buf = BufferExtract(vhdl_text);
return VHDL_TEXT; }
BufferAppend(vhdl_text, *yytext); }
<VHDL>--.*\n { BufferAppendString(vhdl_text, yytext); }
<VHDL>\"[^"\n]\" { BufferAppendString(vhdl_text, yytext); }
<VHDL>\\[^\\\n]\\ { BufferAppendString(vhdl_text, yytext); }
<VHDL>.|\n { BufferAppend(vhdl_text, *yytext); }
This will gather up everything between the curly braces in VHDL_TEXT {...} and return it to your parser as a single token (matching nested braces properly, if there are any in the VHDL text.) You can do macro substitution-like stuff in the VHDL code by adding a rule like:
<VHDL>{IDENT} { if (Macro *mac = lookup_macro_by_name(yytext)) {
BufferAppendString(vhdl_text, mac->replacement);
} else {
BufferAppendString(vhdl_text, yytext); } }
You also probably want a <VHDL><<EOF>> rule to detect a missing closing } on the vhdl text and give an appropriate error message.
I am learning how to use PEGKit, but am running into problem with creating a grammar for a script that parses lines, even when they are separated by multiple line break characters. I have reduced the problem to this grammar:
expr
#before {
PKTokenizer *t = self.tokenizer;
self.silentlyConsumesWhitespace = NO;
t.whitespaceState.reportsWhitespaceTokens = YES;
self.assembly.preservesWhitespaceTokens = YES;
}
= Word nl*;
nl = nl_char nl_char*;
nl_char = '\n'! | '\r'!;
This simple grammar to me should allow one word per line, with as many line breaks as necessary. But it only allows one word with an optional line break. Does anybody know what's wrong here? Thank you.
Creator of PEGKit here.
Try the following grammar instead (make sure you are using HEAD of master):
#before {
PKTokenizer *t = self.tokenizer;
[t.whitespaceState setWhitespaceChars:NO from:'\\n' to:'\\n'];
[t.whitespaceState setWhitespaceChars:NO from:'\\r' to:'\\r'];
[t setTokenizerState:t.symbolState from:'\\n' to:'\\n'];
[t setTokenizerState:t.symbolState from:'\\r' to:'\\r'];
}
lines = line+;
line = ~eol* eol+; // note the `~` Not unary operator. this means "zero or more NON eol tokens, followed by one or more eol token"
eol = '\n'! | '\r'!;
Note that here, I am tweaking the tokenizer to recogognize newlines and carriage returns as Symbols rather than whitespace. That makes it easier to match and discard them (they are discarded by the ! operator).
For another approach to the same problem using the builtin S whitespace rule, see here.
From the Bison Manual:
In a simple interactive command parser
where each input is one line, it may
be sufficient to allow yyparse to
return 1 on error and have the caller
ignore the rest of the input line when
that happens (and then call yyparse
again).
This is pretty much what I want, but I am having trouble getting to work. Basically, I want to detect and error in flex, and if an error is detected, have Bison discard the entire line. What I have right now, isn't working quite right because my commands still get executed:
kbsh: ls '/home
Error: Unterminated Single Quote
admin kbrandt tempuser
syntax error
kbsh:
In my Bison file:
commands:
/*Empty*/ { prompt(); } |
command { prompt(); }
;
command:
error {return 1; } |
chdir_command |
pwd_command |
exit_command |
WORD arg_list {
execute_command($1, $2);
//printf("%s, %s\n", $1, $2);
} |
WORD { execute_command($1, NULL); }
;
And in my Flex:
' {BEGIN inQuote; }
<inQuote>\n {printf("Error: Unterminated Single Quote\n"); BEGIN(0); return(ERROR);}
I don't think you'll find a simple solution to handling these types of parsing errors in the lexer.
I would keep the lexer (flex/lex) as dumb as possible, it should just provide a stream of basic tokens (identifiers, keywords, etc...) and have the parser (yacc/bison) do the error detection. In fact it is setup for exactly what you want, with a little restructuring of your approach...
In the lexer (parser.l), keep it simple (no eol/newline handling), something like (isn't full thing):
}%
/* I don't recall if the backslashify is required below */
SINGLE_QUOTE_STRING \'.*\'
DOUBLE_QUOTE_STRING \".*\"
%%
{SINGLE_QUOTE_STRING} {
yylval.charstr = copy_to_tmp_buffer(yytext); // implies a %union
return STRING;
}
{DOUBLE_QUOTE_STRING} {
yylval.charstr = copy_to_tmp_buffer(yytext); // implies a %union
return STRING;
}
\n return NEWLINE;
Then in your parser.y file do all the real handling (isn't full thing):
command:
error NEWLINE
{ yyclearin; yyerrorok; print_the_next_command_prompt(); }
| chdir_command STRING NEWLINE
{ do_the_chdir($<charstr>2); print_the_next_command_prompt(); }
| ... and so on ...
There are two things to note here:
The shift of things like NEWLINE to the yacc side so that you can determine when the user is done with the command then you can clear things out and start over (assuming you have "int yywrap() {return 1;}" somewhere). If you try to detect it too early in flex, when do you know to raise an error?
chdir isn't one command (unless it was sub ruled and you just didn't show it), it now has chdir_command STRING (the argument to the chdir). This makes it so that the parser can figure out what went wrong, you can then yyerror if that directory doesn't exist, etc...
This way you should get something like (guessing what chdir might look like):
cd 'some_directory
syntax error
cd 'some_directory'
you are in the some_directory dude!
And it is all handled by the yacc grammer, not by the tokenizer.
I have found that keeping flex as simple as possible gives you the most ***flex***ibility. :)