Fixed scribble bug #15 (Can't require a submodule in the same chunk with scribble/lp2) #42
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
SuzanneSoy
force-pushed
the
scribble-lp-fix-require-submod
branch
2 times, most recently
from
ddb1842
to
e1ff6f1
Compare
…cketblock vs RACKETBLOCK parameter for chunk and CHUNK instead of calling define-syntax-rule twice.
SuzanneSoy
force-pushed
the
scribble-lp-fix-require-submod
branch
from
e1ff6f1
to
a3f8e6a
Compare
SuzanneSoy
changed the title
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
This fixes bug #15.
The problem was that when analyzing a chunk,
scribble/lptries to identify therequirestatements and automatically append them to a(require (for-label …))statement. Submodules declared in the chunks are not available during the first expansion step.Ideally, we would simply ignore all unknown modules, as I'm not 100% sure this is robust in all cases.
Also, it would be nice to check whether we're in the first expansion step or in the actual module, and include these
requirestatements with an extra".."in the second case.I also cleaned up code by currying the
#'racketblockvs#'RACKETBLOCKparameter forchunkandCHUNKinstead of factoring the two macros with define-syntax-rule. This avoids a lot of(... ...)in the code.