Skip to content

Conversation

timholy
Copy link
Member

@timholy timholy commented Apr 29, 2020

Fixes #46.

I decided to keep definition as it also provides line number information. We could unexport definition, of course, as a breaking change. I intend to go to 1.0 once #55 is resolved and a compatible version of Revise is released, so we'll be making at least one breaking release soon anyway. And if we decide to unexport definition, we could consider doing that separately with a 0.6 release.

Copy link
Contributor

@oxinabox oxinabox left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

Some comments, but seems all and all good.

"""
code_expr(f, t) = definition(Expr, which(f, t))
macro code_expr(ex0...)
InteractiveUtils.gen_call_with_extracted_types_and_kwargs(__module__, :code_expr, ex0)
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

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

there is a builtin function for this?!
This is dangerously close to something I need in ExprTools

@timholy timholy merged commit 9a8ce42 into master May 2, 2020
@timholy timholy deleted the teh/code_expr branch May 2, 2020 20:24
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.

Should we rename definition to code_expr and code_string?

2 participants