fix: incorrect primitive type definitions #253
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
gen740
force-pushed
the
add_wchar_t_to_primitive_type
branch
from
2bcfe58 to
cc5809f
Compare
The type `char64_t` does not exist in C/C++, so it has been removed to fix the grammar.
gen740
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
According to the C99 standard (ISO/IEC 9899:TC3, §7.17),
wchar_tis explicitly classified as an integer type, similar tosize_tandptrdiff_t, both of which are classified as primitive types in tree-sitter-c.Moreover, in C++,
wchar_tis explicitly classified as a fundamental type in the standard (basic.fundamental).To maintain consistency,
wchar_tshould also be classified as a primitive type in tree-sitter-c, ensuring correctness across both C and C++.Additionally, the type
char64_tis currently classified as a primitive type in this repository. However,char64_tdoes not appear in any standard, nor does it seem to exist in any known codebase. To improve accuracy, this PR removeschar64_tfrom the classification.