Incorrect format when macro is used while building a binary

[tgrk]

I was able to successfully reformat quite a big codebase and have to say only one thing - What a great job!

The only issue that I found is that I had multiple syntax issues with this pattern:

<<?i2b(IntegerValue)/binary, " foobar">>

instead of correct one:

<<(?i2b(IntegerValue))/binary, " foobar">>

?i2b/1 macro is just a conversion from integer to binary using BIF function without any wrapper.

Thank you again for a great tool! 🙏

[elbrujohalcon]

Probably a duplicate of #74 . @tgrk please confirm.

[hommeabeil]

I can confirm there is an error in the binary, consider those lines,

-define(CHUNK_SIZE, 65535 - 1).

chunkify(<<Binary:(?CHUNK_SIZE)/binary, Rest/binary>>) ->
    some code ...

Its get reformat as, which is invalide:

chunkify(<<Binary:?CHUNK_SIZE/binary, Rest/binary>>) ->

[elbrujohalcon]

Right, so… when fixing #74, we'll probably fix this one, too.

[hommeabeil]

For my case it is.

[elbrujohalcon]

This is not the same issue as #74, which deals with removing parentheses from within macro definitions.
This one deals with removing parentheses when macros are treated as variables in expressions. This one will be really hard to solve because by the time we get to the point of writing the code we have no information about the presence of parentheses on the original code.