Rename bit_string to bit_array #133
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Pull request overview
This PR systematically renames bit_string to bit_array throughout the codebase to align with updated Gleam terminology. The changes affect grammar definitions, node type specifications, test files, and query files.
- Comprehensive rename from
bit_stringtobit_arrayacross all occurrences - Updates include type names, function names, comments, and test expectations
- Changes maintain consistency across grammar rules, node types, and test corpus
Reviewed changes
Copilot reviewed 10 out of 11 changed files in this pull request and generated no comments.
Show a summary per file
| File | Description |
|---|---|
| test/tags/frame.gleam | Updates type annotations from BitString to BitArray in frame data constructors |
| test/corpus/whole_files.txt | Updates import statement and type references in test corpus examples |
| test/corpus/functions.txt | Renames function and updates AST node names in test expectations |
| test/corpus/expressions.txt | Updates expression type name and AST node references in test cases |
| test/corpus/constants.txt | Updates AST node type names in constant expression tests |
| test/corpus/cases.txt | Updates pattern matching node type names in case expression tests |
| src/node-types.json | Systematic rename of all node type definitions from bit_string to bit_array |
| src/grammar.json | Updates grammar rule names and aliases throughout the JSON definition |
| queries/highlights.scm | Updates syntax highlighting query to reference new segment option name |
| grammar.js | Renames functions, rules, and comments from bit_string to bit_array terminology |
💡 Add Copilot custom instructions for smarter, more guided reviews. Learn how to get started.
| @@ -4633,996 +4633,996 @@ static bool ts_lex(TSLexer *lexer, TSStateId state) { | |||
| eof = lexer->eof(lexer); | |||
| switch (state) { | |||
| case 0: | |||
| if (eof) ADVANCE(177); | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I’m not very familiar with tree-sitter, so I’m not sure whether this is the correct change for the parser.
I only renamed the rule, but the parser’s magic number — which seems to be an important element — changed as a result. I hope this is the expected behavior of the parser code generation.
1 participant
Closes #132.
I used the IDE’s find-and-replace feature for this change. Of course, I reviewed all the modified code as thoroughly as possible.