Eliminate need to parse include paths

[timholy]

This is based on the not-yet-merged JuliaLang/julia#23898. Locally it passes all tests until it gets to the Revise.track tests, because there I haven't expunged the dependence on parsing. I'm posting this now because there seems to be room to discuss how this should work:

• Revise.track(Base): perhaps the best approach here would be for base/sysimg.jl to keep track of the files it includes, and Revise could just look that information up.
• More interesting is Revise.track(filename), which I'm thinking of in the context of "scripts" for test or analysis code. Currently we recursively track any file included by that file, based on parsing. If we wanted to replicate that, note that the new Revise.included_files list includes the entire set, once filename has been included once. The trouble is that if the user has included several files, there doesn't seem to be a great way to know which files got recursively included by which operation. One approach would be to temporarily empty the list and re-include filename, but that has some obvious downsides. Overall, here I favor restricting it to be literal, and require users to list each file they want to track.

Once merged this will fix #40.

[cstjean]

How will this interact with @require? AFAICT @require A include("foo.jl") will correctly track foo.jl, but @require A function bar() ... end will not track bar. Is that right?

[timholy]

Not sure, to be honest.

FYI once I finish closing a couple of other issues, I'm planning to tag a v0.1.0 release, fork a 0.6 branch, and then make master 0.7-only. JuliaLang/julia#23898 makes Revise work so much more reliably, I think we really should just focus on making Revise as good as it can be for Julia 1.0.

When tagged, the new one will be (at least) v0.2.0, so that if needed we can continue to fix 0.6 on that 0.6 branch.

Seem OK to you?

[cstjean]

Sure, I will most likely do the same with TraceCalls.

[timholy]

Great. Just tagged 0.1.

I may have just figured out in principle how to handle deleted specializations. For me I think that's the main reason for Revise to "fail", so I'm tempted to see if I can get that in before the fork. Won't be quick, though, I have other deadlines (the PRs were a "study break" :smile).

[codecov]

Codecov Report

Merging #49 into master will decrease coverage by 1.49%.
The diff coverage is 93.63%.

@@            Coverage Diff            @@
##           master      #49     +/-   ##
=========================================
- Coverage   85.48%   83.98%   -1.5%     
=========================================
  Files           1        4      +3     
  Lines         310      306      -4     
=========================================
- Hits          265      257      -8     
- Misses         45       49      +4

Impacted Files	Coverage Δ
src/types.jl	100% <100%> (ø)
src/parsing.jl	89.47% <89.47%> (ø)
src/relocatable_exprs.jl	95.45% <95.45%> (ø)
src/Revise.jl	79.7% <96.22%> (-5.79%)	⬇️

---

Continue to review full report at Codecov.

Legend - Click here to learn more
Δ = absolute <relative> (impact), ø = not affected, ? = missing data
Powered by Codecov. Last update 90d49fa...6349790. Read the comment docs.

[timholy]

This should work on sufficiently-recent master, but until CI passes I'm reluctant to merge since I can only test Linux. JuliaLang/julia#23846