Drop Lexer 1 #465
Merged
Drop Lexer 1 #465
Conversation
This file contains 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
|
🤔 now I remember #462 and I think it might be a bad idea to do this on 1.x… php-cs-fixer seems to be using the Let's not shy away from a new major. |
This is not a big deal because doctrine/lexer 1 has the same version constraints as doctrine/lexer 2. Note that I'm removing the BC-layer for DocLexer::peek() and DocLexer::glimpse(): in retrospect, I think it was a bad idea because there was already a BC-break with DocLexer::$lookahead and DocLexer::$token.
greg0ire
force-pushed
the
drop-lexer-1
branch
from
eab856a
to
54d06be
Compare
SenseException
approved these changes
Dec 16, 2022
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This is not a big deal because
doctrine/lexer1 has the same version constraints asdoctrine/lexer2.Note that I'm removing the BC-layer for
DocLexer::peek()andDocLexer::glimpse(): in retrospect, I think it was a bad idea because there was already a BC-break withDocLexer::$lookaheadandDocLexer::$token.If you don't think that is acceptable, let me know and I will retarget to 2.0.x (and release it in a short amount of time).