Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

run each Expr(toplevel) argument in the newest world #19861

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jan 17, 2017

Conversation

vtjnash
Copy link
Member

@vtjnash vtjnash commented Jan 4, 2017

@tkelman
Copy link
Contributor

tkelman commented Jan 4, 2017

Is there something within base that could test this?

@stevengj
Copy link
Member

stevengj commented Jan 4, 2017

See how I tested #19784 for example.

@tkelman tkelman added the needs tests Unit tests are required for this change label Jan 5, 2017
@vtjnash vtjnash force-pushed the jn/toplevel_eval_world branch from 1bd1c03 to 4d82e2a Compare January 17, 2017 01:57
@tkelman tkelman removed the needs tests Unit tests are required for this change label Jan 17, 2017
@@ -414,6 +414,26 @@ test_parseerror("0x1.0p", "invalid numeric constant \"0x1.0\"")
try = "No"
""")) == Expr(:error, "unexpected \"=\"")

# issue #19861 make sure macro-expansion happens in the newest world for top-level expression
@test eval(Base.parse_input_line("""
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

would include_string be any better?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

nah, the include_string code-path was fine. this is an an entirely different bit of code.

@vtjnash vtjnash merged commit fab13f2 into master Jan 17, 2017
@vtjnash vtjnash deleted the jn/toplevel_eval_world branch January 17, 2017 17:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants