Michael Ficarra

Thanks for the PR, but there's a lot of work still needed here and, more importantly, I am still not sure of the future of `super` in CoffeeScript to begin...

Sure. I'd merge a PR that achieves that. We need all those tests I mentioned in place first, though.

I don't understand why the line number was incorrect before. Is there not a simpler way we can fix this? Obviously there's a bug somewhere if it's reporting an error...

We have to remember that we're doing quite a few hacky things to try to get context sensitivity. It could have something to do with either our preprocessor-inserted context markers...

I don't think so. `helpers` is something that needs to be mutated (or threaded through return values monadically), right? `inScope` and `ancestry` are entirely informational. They are built up in...

Yeah, it's a shitty one. You can keep the state in the Compiler instance and mutate it there instead of threading it through the compilation rules. It's cleaner. Unfortunately, JavaScript/CoffeeScript...

Since this example is better isolated, I'm going to close the earlier issue as a duplicate of this one.

@erisdiscord: thanks for answering this. Closing as `wontfix`.

Re-opening. I'd like to add a parser rule at the end of blocks to look for a semicolon first. If it sees one, it should immediately throw an error. Thanks...

After looking into this syntax, I've come to the conclusion that this was not an intentional feature. At the end of a function call, an implicit object may be given...