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

ext_attributes should be available toplevel open and module #6558

Closed
vicuna opened this issue Sep 15, 2014 · 3 comments
Closed

ext_attributes should be available toplevel open and module #6558

vicuna opened this issue Sep 15, 2014 · 3 comments

Comments

@vicuna
Copy link

vicuna commented Sep 15, 2014

Original bug ID: 6558
Reporter: furuse
Status: acknowledged (set by @damiendoligez on 2014-09-15T07:49:45Z)
Resolution: open
Priority: normal
Severity: feature
Version: 4.02.0+beta1 / +rc1
Category: lexing and parsing
Monitored by: @gasche

Bug description

In 4.02.0, ext_attributes are available for local module and open:

let module <ext_attributes> M = ... in

let open <ext_attributes> M in ...

It should be also available for the non-local versions:

module <ext_attributes> M = ...

open <ext_attributes> M

@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Sep 15, 2014

Comment author: furuse

Background: Currently I am playing ppx to replace pa_ounit like:

TEST name = e

=> let %TEST name = e

It works fine for TEST and TEST_UNIT but I do not find a good syntax to replace

TEST_MODULE name = struct .. end

I thought of module %TEST name = struct .. end but it is not available.

@vicuna
Copy link
Author

vicuna commented Sep 15, 2014

Comment author: @lpw25

Background: Currently I am playing ppx to replace pa_ounit like:

TEST name = e

=> let %TEST name = e

Another possible syntax might be:

TEST name = e

=> [%%TEST.name e]

and

TEST_MODULE name = struct ... end

=> [%%TEST.name ... ]

@github-actions
Copy link

This issue has been open one year with no activity. Consequently, it is being marked with the "stale" label. What this means is that the issue will be automatically closed in 30 days unless more comments are added or the "stale" label is removed. Comments that provide new information on the issue are especially welcome: is it still reproducible? did it appear in other contexts? how critical is it? etc.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant