Try blocks aligned

[rattrayalex]

Addresses lightscript/lightscript#23
cc @wcjohnson

[rattrayalex]

The blockType wasn't needed for this (or do-while, which already has a matching-indent requirement) so I removed it, FYI.

However, I think that's because I'd forgotten that I'd won the battle not to enforce matching :/{ in ifs, and added that requirement in try/catch, which is inconsistent. So I may need to rethink that.

[wcjohnson]

If you are willing to enforce syntax with if as well, you might not need the stack at all.

[rattrayalex]

Yeah. I'm finally starting to lean that direction 😉

As you know, the thinking behind the flexibility is that the linter should enforce consistency, and the compiler permit poor style, so that while a developer is quickly iterating on code they can proceed with mismatched style and then fix it up later.

However, we don't currently have lsc-specific linting rules, and it's now looking like that might be a ways out.

So while there will probably be other language features that are permissive in the hopes of a future linter coming to the rescue, I think it might be worth just enforcing consistency at the compiler level for now, and possibly reimplementing the current behavior later.

@wcjohnson it sounds like you'd be in favor of that (you always wanted consistency enforced here anyway, IIRC) – @citycide any thoughts on this?

[rattrayalex]

Actually, the stack looks necessary in cases like this anyway:

x = if a:
  if (b) {
    c
  }
else if d:
  e

where, when parsing the inner if, the else is encountered, and cannot be discarded until after the alternate if's condition (d) is parsed, and the : is seen. That could be done with an extensive lookahead, but it would be quite messy as it traverses a few methods (plus would be slower).

[rattrayalex]

I'll give that a try, thanks

[rattrayalex]

Err, sorry, @wcjohnson at a high level can you explain how you handled the lookahead problem there?

[wcjohnson]

The approach I outlined probably won't work; I thought about it some more and deleted the comment. I do think it can be done without lookahead but it wouldn't be that straightforward.

[rattrayalex]

Hmm, k. I think I'll continue to use the stack but might still enforce : consistency.

[rattrayalex]

(FYI, I have to head out for the day soon and likely won't finish before then)

[rattrayalex]

Updated, now enforces matching : behavior in both if and try

[rattrayalex]

Will merge tomorrow unless anyone has concerns

[wcjohnson]

I think this is the right way to go, no objections here.