diff --git a/.pre-commit-config.yaml b/.pre-commit-config.yaml index b584c1c2d8cc..7fb99b7b3b15 100644 --- a/.pre-commit-config.yaml +++ b/.pre-commit-config.yaml @@ -48,10 +48,14 @@ repos: rev: 1b2427a2b785cc4aac97c19bb4b9a0de063f9547 # frozen: 24.10.0 hooks: - id: black - - repo: https://github.com/pre-commit/mirrors-prettier - rev: ffb6a759a979008c0e6dff86e39f4745a2d9eac4 # frozen: v3.1.0 + - repo: local hooks: - id: prettier + name: prettier + language: node + additional_dependencies: ['prettier@3.3.3'] + types_or: [html, javascript, markdown, yaml] + entry: npx prettier --write --log-level=warn - repo: local hooks: - id: buildifier diff --git a/.prettierrc.yaml b/.prettierrc.yaml index 5d64cc4f54ff..8ca44bda378a 100644 --- a/.prettierrc.yaml +++ b/.prettierrc.yaml @@ -9,6 +9,6 @@ tabWidth: 2 trailingComma: 'es5' useTabs: false overrides: - - files: '*.md' + - files: '**/*.md' options: tabWidth: 4 diff --git a/docs/design/pattern_matching.md b/docs/design/pattern_matching.md index 2bb378874cf1..5554aa809d64 100644 --- a/docs/design/pattern_matching.md +++ b/docs/design/pattern_matching.md @@ -335,7 +335,8 @@ _pattern_ `=` _expression_ `;`. A tuple of patterns can be used as a pattern. - _tuple-pattern_ ::= `(` [_expression_ `,`]\* _proper-pattern_ [`,` - _pattern_]\* `,`? `)` + _pattern_]\* + `,`? `)` - _proper-pattern_ ::= _tuple-pattern_ A _tuple-pattern_ containing no commas is treated as grouping parens: the @@ -355,7 +356,8 @@ compares fields left-to-right. A struct can be matched with a struct pattern. - _proper-pattern_ ::= `{` [_field-init_ `,`]\* _proper-field-pattern_ [`,` - _field-pattern_]\* `}` + _field-pattern_]\* + `}` - _proper-pattern_ ::= `{` [_field-pattern_ `,`]+ `_` `}` - _field-init_ ::= _designator_ `=` _expression_ - _proper-field-pattern_ ::= _designator_ `=` _proper-pattern_ diff --git a/docs/design/values.md b/docs/design/values.md index e8f03c83831d..b1a148913c1d 100644 --- a/docs/design/values.md +++ b/docs/design/values.md @@ -674,8 +674,8 @@ alternatives considered section of [P2006]: ### Pointer syntax The type of a pointer to a type `T` is written with a postfix `*` as in `T*`. -Dereferencing a pointer is a [_reference expression_] and is written with a -prefix `*` as in `*p`: +Dereferencing a pointer is a [_reference expression_] and is written with a prefix +`*` as in `*p`: ```carbon var i: i32 = 42; diff --git a/proposals/p0107.md b/proposals/p0107.md index eabdcb6d667b..5e5ba8c2c08d 100644 --- a/proposals/p0107.md +++ b/proposals/p0107.md @@ -553,10 +553,10 @@ We could instead use `.` for library names and `/` for packages, such as Advantages: - Clearer distinction between the package and library, increasing readability. -- We have chosen not to [enforce file system - paths](#strict-association-between-the-file - system-path-and-librarynamespace) in order to ease refactoring, and - encouraging a mental model where they may match could confuse users. +- We have chosen not to + [enforce file system paths](#should-there-be-a-tight-association-between-file-paths-and-packageslibraries) + in order to ease refactoring, and encouraging a mental model where they may + match could confuse users. Disadvantages: diff --git a/proposals/p1083.md b/proposals/p1083.md index 3e8dd5434696..9581313f09a1 100644 --- a/proposals/p1083.md +++ b/proposals/p1083.md @@ -286,12 +286,12 @@ Disadvantages: expectations, for example in some important bit-manipulation cases. - Give integer types a range of values rather than simply a bit-width. For example, we can say that negation on `i32` produces a type that can - represent [-231+1, 231], which still fits in 32 - bits. However, this would add significant complexity to the type system, - and with this approach, division would still increase the bit width: for - example, `a / b`, where `a` and `b` are `iN`s, has 2`N`+1 - distinct possible values. This is especially surprising because integer - division is usually expected to make a number smaller! + represent [-231+1, 231], which still fits in 32 bits. + However, this would add significant complexity to the type system, and with + this approach, division would still increase the bit width: for example, + `a / b`, where `a` and `b` are `iN`s, has 2`N`+1 distinct possible + values. This is especially surprising because integer division is usually + expected to make a number smaller! - Refactoring code becomes more challenging, as the appropriate intermediate type must be determined. Mitigating this, the type system would inform the programmer when they make a mistake. @@ -379,9 +379,9 @@ cases are: difference of such unsigned quantities, and it's generally preferable for such subtractions to produce a negative result rather than a subtle bug. Moreover, while a restriction to non-negative values is common, supporting - only the case of a range restriction to [0, 2N-1], but not any - other range, does not do a good job of addressing the general desire to - capture intent and to make invalid states unrepresentable. + only the case of a range restriction to [0, 2N-1], but not any other + range, does not do a good job of addressing the general desire to capture intent + and to make invalid states unrepresentable. - Ability to reduce storage size. Spending a sign bit every time a number is stored, even when it's known to be non-negative is wasteful. This is an important concern, and one we should address, but it's thought to be better diff --git a/proposals/p2188.md b/proposals/p2188.md index d286afdc9757..125d981d46f9 100644 --- a/proposals/p2188.md +++ b/proposals/p2188.md @@ -362,7 +362,8 @@ _pattern_ `=` _expression_ `;`. A tuple of patterns can be used as a pattern. - _tuple-pattern_ ::= `(` [_expression_ `,`]\* _proper-pattern_ [`,` - _pattern_]\* `,`? `)` + _pattern_]\* + `,`? `)` - _proper-pattern_ ::= _tuple-pattern_ A _tuple-pattern_ containing no commas is treated as grouping parens: the @@ -382,7 +383,8 @@ compares fields left-to-right. A struct can be matched with a struct pattern. - _proper-pattern_ ::= `{` [_field-init_ `,`]\* _proper-field-pattern_ [`,` - _field-pattern_]\* `}` + _field-pattern_]\* + `}` - _proper-pattern_ ::= `{` [_field-pattern_ `,`]+ `_` `}` - _field-init_ ::= _designator_ `=` _expression_ - _proper-field-pattern_ ::= _designator_ `=` _proper-pattern_ diff --git a/proposals/p2550.md b/proposals/p2550.md index d197e17247cc..01850b0eee39 100644 --- a/proposals/p2550.md +++ b/proposals/p2550.md @@ -103,8 +103,8 @@ provide a `main` function that is used as the entry point. In the `Main` package, the package declaration does not explicitly specify a package name. The package declaration syntax becomes: -- `package` _Foo_ [`library "`_Bar_`"`] \(`api` | `impl`) `;`, unchanged from - #107, for a file that is part of a package other than the `Main` package. +- `package` _Foo_ [`library "`_Bar_`"`] \(`api` | `impl`) `;`, unchanged from #107, + for a file that is part of a package other than the `Main` package. - `library "`_Bar_`"` (`api` | `impl`) `;` for a library that is part of the `Main` package. - Omitted entirely for an `impl` file in the `Main` package that is not part diff --git a/proposals/p3564.md b/proposals/p3564.md index c50d6636050e..faadf9f4ed9f 100644 --- a/proposals/p3564.md +++ b/proposals/p3564.md @@ -56,10 +56,9 @@ evaluation. We executed on this really well, but with mixed results. https://github.com/carbon-language/carbon-lang/blob/840cb1bed7cf9bd57e000cb4a61e986c383d3038/docs/project/roadmap.md On getting ready for evaluation, we made fantastic progress on getting the -language (design) ready. We have [milestone definitions], and closed the most -critical gaps in the design from the start of the year. The remaining gaps are -either lower risk, almost finished, or really need interop to effectively -explore. +language (design) ready. We have [milestone definitions], and closed the most critical +gaps in the design from the start of the year. The remaining gaps are either lower +risk, almost finished, or really need interop to effectively explore. [milestone definitions]: /docs/project/milestones.md diff --git a/proposals/p3720.md b/proposals/p3720.md index 6fb32bd03d67..2832354b5028 100644 --- a/proposals/p3720.md +++ b/proposals/p3720.md @@ -229,8 +229,8 @@ Assert((r as __Binding_C_Static).(Call(()).Op)() == 2); How does this arise? 1. First the simple member access is resolved using the type of the receiver: \ - `v.F` -> `v.(C.F)`, `v.Static` -> `v.(C.Static)`, `r.F` -> `r.(C.F)`, `r.Static` - -> `r.(C.Static)`. \ + `v.F` -> `v.(C.F)`, `v.Static` -> `v.(C.Static)`, `r.F` -> `r.(C.F)`, + `r.Static` -> `r.(C.Static)`. \ Note that `C.F` is `__C_F` with type `__TypeOf_C_F`, and `C.Static` is `__C_Static` with type `__TypeOf_C_Static`. 2. It then looks at the expression to the left of the `.`: