Adds test cases for add/set_symbols and add/set_macros #136
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
zslayton
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2024
| // add_macros does not have any side-effects on the symbol table | ||
| // add_macros should append its arguments to the macro table of the default module | ||
| // annotations on any argument value should signal an error (because it's not allowed in the macro table rather than because of any specific validation by the add_macros macro) | ||
| // TODO: add_macros can accept a module name (of a loaded module) as an argument? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Yes, I think so. The options would be:
(macro name () body)to define a macro in-situ.macro_ref(qualified or unqualified) to add an already-defined macromodule_name::*to add all ofmodule_name's exported macros
Note that foo would be considered an unqualified macro name rather than a module, which is why foo::* exists.
| (toplevel '#$1' '#$65' '#$66') | ||
| (produces '$ion' 'make_field' '')))) | ||
|
|
||
| (ion_1_1 "add_symbols can accept" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Similarly, I think add_symbols and set_symbols would also be able to accept module_name::*.
Comment on lines
+4
to
+5
| // TODO: set_macros can accept a module name (of a loaded module) as an argument? | ||
| // TODO: set_macros can accept a module/macro export? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same thoughts as on add_macros.
Comment on lines
+4
to
+5
| (ion_1_1 "set_symbols can be invoked" | ||
| (each "in text with an unqualified macro name" |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Same comment RE: module_name::*.
tgregg
approved these changes
Nov 21, 2024
| (each (text "(:$ion::add_symbols)") | ||
| (text "(:$ion::add_symbols 'a')") | ||
| (text "(:$ion::add_symbols 'a' 'b')") | ||
| // TODO: If it's not too difficult, assert that no macros are added |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Can you just assert that attempting to invoke (:1) fails due to an unknown address?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Maybe, but I'm going to wait for the dust to settle on the Modules part of the spec first.
Co-authored-by: Zack Slayton <[email protected]>
Co-authored-by: Tyler Gregg <[email protected]> Co-authored-by: Zack Slayton <[email protected]>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Issue #, if available:
#88
Description of changes:
Adds test cases for
add_symbols,set_symbols,add_macros, andset_macros.By submitting this pull request, I confirm that my contribution is made under the terms of the Apache 2.0 license.