suzanne.soy/cover
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Actions Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

changed my mind about define-syntax(es)

Browse Source
This commit is contained in:
Spencer Florence 2015-01-16 17:15:07 -05:00
parent d5d433d802
commit 281bf60777
2 changed files with 3 additions and 4 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

4
private/format-utils.rkt
View File

@ -81,8 +81,8 @@
(let loop ([stx stx] [first? #t])
(define (loop* stx) (loop stx #f))
(syntax-parse stx
#:datum-literals (module module* module+ begin-for-syntax define-syntax define-syntaxes)
[((~or module module* module+ begin-for-syntax define-syntax define-syntaxes)
#:datum-literals (module module* module+ begin-for-syntax)
[((~or module module* module+ begin-for-syntax)
e ...)
#:when (not first?)
(define ?start (syntax-position stx))

3
scribblings/api.scrbl
View File

@ -48,8 +48,7 @@ in that file is covered. By default it checks character locations.
There are three possible results:
@itemize[@item{@racket['irrelevant] --- The location is not considered relevant to coverage information.
It is either not in the coverage information; is in a submodule; is a @racket[define-syntax],
@racket[define-syntaxes], or @racket[begin-for-syntax] form;
It is either not in the coverage information; is in a submodule; is a @racket[begin-for-syntax] form;
or lexes (in the sense of that languages, @racket[_color-lexer]) as a comment or whitespace.}
@item{@racket['covered] --- The location is not @racket['irrelevant] and is
covered}