(Do you want me to file another bug report?)
I don't know what "clever manipulation of source location" could
mean, so I am posting the essence of the big-bang macro right here.
As you can see I am doing _nothing_ with locations. Is it possible
that I should use *syntax*/loc? (This may help with another bug I
have re check-syntax and the new big-bang.)
-- Matthias
(define-syntax (big-bang stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(big-bang) (raise-syntax-error #f "bad world description" stx)]
[(big-bang w s ...)
(let* ([Spec (append AllSpec WldSpec)]
[kwds (map (lambda (x) (datum->syntax #'here x)) (map
car Spec))]
[rec? #'#f]
[spec (map (lambda (stx)
(syntax-case stx ()
[(kw . E)
(and (identifier? #'kw)
(for/or ([n kwds]) (free-
identifier=? #'kw n)))
(begin
(when (free-identifier=? #'kw #'record?)
(syntax-case #'E ()
[(V) (set! rec? #'V)]
[_ (err 'record? stx)]))
(cons #'kw #;(syntax-e #'kw) (syntax
E)))]
[_ (raise-syntax-error
'big-bang "not a legal big-bang
clause" stx)]))
(syntax->list (syntax (s ...))))]
;; assert: all bind = (kw . E) and kw is constrained via
Bind
[args (map (lambda (x)
(define kw (car x))
(define co ;; patch from Jay to allow
rename on import
(findf (lambda (n) (free-identifier=? kw
(car n)))
(map (lambda (k s) (cons k (cdr s)))
kwds Spec)))
(list (syntax-e (car co)) ((cadr co) (cdr
x))))
spec)])
#`(send (new (if #,rec? aworld% world%) [world0 w] #,@args)
last))]))
On May 11, 2009, at 10:45 AM, Robby Findler wrote:
I dropped bugs since this is not the same bug as the original PR.
The problem appears to be a combination of the way big-bang expands
and the way test coverage works. Here's a shorter program that I think
illustrates this a little bit better:
;; BSL:
(require 2htdp/universe)
(define (clack ws x y action) 1)
(define (main s) (big-bang s (on-mouse clack)))
(clack 5 3 2 "leave")
In this program, you see the identifier 'clack' in the definition of
clack highlighted, as well as the 's' in the body of main.
This is almost right -- the correct thing would have been to highlight
the 'clack' in the argument to on-mouse instead of the other clack.
Is it possible that the big-bang macro is doing somethign clever with
source locations that confuses the test coverage?
FWIW, the test coverage is simply updating some state somewhere with
source location ranges in the editor and then coloring things based on
what was executed in the fully expanded program. Perhaps it is worth
looking at 'big-bang' and thinking about how source locations of
syntax objects flow thru that expansion in those terms?
Robby
_________________________________________________
For list-related administrative tasks:
http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
