Allow macros to be found by evaluating expressions#1454
Merged
Conversation
Contributor
|
@perrydv ok to merge given the test failures are unrelated? |
Contributor
Author
|
Yes. |
This file contains hidden or 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
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be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.
Macros are currently an internal and unused feature, but we have substantial development going on with them for future releases. We need macros to be found by namespace operators. This PR enables something much more general, which is to search for possible macros by evaluating arbitrary expressions, which should include namespace operators. It is not easy to write a test for finding a macro in a namespace, but everything else and an indirect test on namespaces works and is added to test-macros.R. Macros are still disabled by default (
nimbleOptions("enableModelMacros")is FALSE), so the chances of this PR breaking something should be small.