Fix various interaction breakage between the new DMdA records and the stepper.
Namely, attach the `stepper-ignore-completely' property to each individual definition, rather than just to the block of definitions as a whole.
This commit is contained in:
parent
61f6c2077d
commit
5f8924b1d2
|
@ -118,9 +118,8 @@
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
(with-syntax
|
(with-syntax
|
||||||
((defs
|
((struct-type-defs
|
||||||
#'(begin
|
#'(define-values (type-descriptor
|
||||||
(define-values (type-descriptor
|
|
||||||
raw-constructor
|
raw-constructor
|
||||||
raw-predicate
|
raw-predicate
|
||||||
raw-generic-access
|
raw-generic-access
|
||||||
|
@ -148,14 +147,14 @@
|
||||||
(raw-generic-access r number-of-fields))
|
(raw-generic-access r number-of-fields))
|
||||||
(lambda (r val)
|
(lambda (r val)
|
||||||
(raw-generic-mutate r number-of-fields val)))))
|
(raw-generic-mutate r number-of-fields val)))))
|
||||||
(make-inspector)))
|
(make-inspector))))
|
||||||
(define ?constructor constructor-proc)
|
(constructor-def #'(define ?constructor constructor-proc))
|
||||||
(define-values (?predicate real-predicate)
|
(predicate-def #'(define-values (?predicate real-predicate)
|
||||||
(values predicate-proc predicate-proc))
|
(values predicate-proc predicate-proc)))
|
||||||
(define-values (accessor ... our-accessor ...)
|
(accessor-defs #'(define-values (accessor ... our-accessor ...)
|
||||||
(values accessor-proc ... accessor-proc ...))
|
(values accessor-proc ... accessor-proc ...)))
|
||||||
(define mutator mutator-proc) ...))
|
(mutator-defs #'(define-values (mutator ...) (values mutator-proc ...)))
|
||||||
(contract
|
(contract-def
|
||||||
(with-syntax (((?param ...) (generate-temporaries #'(?field-spec ...))))
|
(with-syntax (((?param ...) (generate-temporaries #'(?field-spec ...))))
|
||||||
(with-syntax (((component-contract ...)
|
(with-syntax (((component-contract ...)
|
||||||
(map (lambda (accessor param)
|
(map (lambda (accessor param)
|
||||||
|
@ -188,15 +187,22 @@
|
||||||
;; for ?type-name using ?predicate is inadvertently defined
|
;; for ?type-name using ?predicate is inadvertently defined
|
||||||
base-contract
|
base-contract
|
||||||
constructor-contract))))))
|
constructor-contract))))))
|
||||||
(with-syntax ((defs
|
;; again, with properties
|
||||||
|
(with-syntax ((struct-type-defs
|
||||||
(stepper-syntax-property
|
(stepper-syntax-property
|
||||||
(syntax/loc x defs) 'stepper-skip-completely #t)))
|
(syntax/loc x struct-type-defs) 'stepper-skip-completely #t))
|
||||||
|
(constructor-def
|
||||||
|
(stepper-syntax-property #'constructor-def 'stepper-skip-completely #t))
|
||||||
|
(predicate-def
|
||||||
|
(stepper-syntax-property #'predicate-def 'stepper-skip-completely #t))
|
||||||
|
(accessor-defs
|
||||||
|
(stepper-syntax-property #'accessor-defs 'stepper-skip-completely #t))
|
||||||
|
(mutator-defs
|
||||||
|
(stepper-syntax-property #'mutator-defs 'stepper-skip-completely #t)))
|
||||||
#'(begin
|
#'(begin
|
||||||
contract
|
contract-def
|
||||||
;; the contract might be used in the definitions, hence this ordering
|
;; the contract might be used in the definitions, hence this ordering
|
||||||
defs))))))
|
struct-type-defs constructor-def predicate-def accessor-defs mutator-defs))))))
|
||||||
|
|
||||||
((_ ?type-name
|
((_ ?type-name
|
||||||
?contract-constructor-name
|
?contract-constructor-name
|
||||||
?constructor
|
?constructor
|
||||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user