Update 'definition-text-surrogate to accept lists #244
Conversation
Before a language's get-info function was expected to return a module-path? (or #f) for 'definitions-text-surrogate. Now a list is also acceptable, which can be used for meta-language's that combine their surrogate with the base language they are extending.
|
I've updated the docs. However I can't seem to find any existing tests for 'definitions-text-surrogate. |
|
Ugg... Thinking about it a bit more, a list can be a module-path? (Like in the case of |
|
Make a new key that drr will prefer that is always a list.
|
This is because a list can be a valid module path, which made the (or/c #f module-path? (listof module-path?)) contract conflict with itself. Now DrRacket defaults to getting a list, and falls back to a single module-path? if none is provided.
|
@rfindler Good idea. I've pushed that. |
|
Any other comments @rfindler ? |
|
Is #f different than the empty list for The definition of The docs would be clearer if they said explicitly what order the mixins are mixed in. This seems unlikely to be correct: The comment "Will not work with the definitions text surrogate interposition that |
3 participants
Before a language's get-info function was expected to return a
module-path? (or #f) for 'definitions-text-surrogate. Now a list is also
acceptable, which can be used for meta-language's that combine their
surrogate with the base language they are extending.