Sometimes to fix something you have to break it first.
This get GDScript mostly working with the new tokenizer and parser but
a lot of things isn't working yet. It compiles and it's usable, and that
should be enough for now.
Don't worry: other huge commits will come after this.
My initial attempt changed this in the gdscript code, which resulted in
a duplicate warning name in the builtin editor. We should just append
the warning name in the LSP instead.
This uses parens to match what is shown in the builtin editor.
- Extacted all syntax highlighting code from text edit
- Removed enable syntax highlighting from text edit
- Added line_edited_from signal to text_edit
- Renamed get/set_syntax_highlighting to get/set_syntax_highlighter
- Added EditorSyntaxHighligher
Occasionally you want to ignore a warning with a `warning-ignore`
comment, and you have to go into the settings to look up what the
actual name of the warning is. This patch appends the warning name to
the end of the warning so you know what string to use to ignore it,
similar to other linters like pylint.
For example
```
"The signal 'blah' is declared but never emitted.";
```
is now
```
"The signal 'blah' is declared but never emitted. (UNUSED_SIGNAL)";
```
Reverts `latest_client_id` back to 0, as I misunderstood how the client
IDs are assigned and, without further testing and debugging, I can't
say if this was a bug or a valid default value.
Similarly, a `latest_client_id` of -1 is no longer raising an error.
Fixes#39548.
`latest_client_id` now defaults to `-1` (invalid ID) instead of `0`.
Also fix typo in notification `gdscrip_client/changeWorkspace`,
and fix argument names in method binds.
Fixes#39375.
Depending on the conditional statements of the 'for' and 'while' loops,
their body may not even execute once. For example:
func a():
var arr = []
for i in arr:
return i
# can be reached, but analysis says cannot
return -1
func b():
var should_loop = false
while should_loop:
return 1
# can be reached, but analysis says cannot
return 0
The parser will complain that the statements after the comment cannot
be reached, but it is clearly possible for our scenario. This is
because the parser falsely assumes that the loop body will always
execute at least once.
Fix the code to remove this assumption for both of those loops.
