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

Should a testitem be baremodule rather than a module? #199

Open
nickrobinson251 opened this issue Jan 16, 2025 · 0 comments
Open

Should a testitem be baremodule rather than a module? #199

nickrobinson251 opened this issue Jan 16, 2025 · 0 comments
Labels
speculative a feature idea that we are undecided about

Comments

@nickrobinson251
Copy link
Collaborator

...so that users can define a function named eval if they wish (which in Julia v1.12 (JuliaLang/julia#55949) would be an error, they'd have to instead extend Base.eval or use another name)

If we were to use a baremodule, we'd probably still need to define include (since some users seem to prefer include'ing a file than using a testsetup) e.g. by defining using Base; include(args...) = Base.include($mod, args...) where $mod is the name of the testitem baremodule.

@nickrobinson251 nickrobinson251 added the speculative a feature idea that we are undecided about label Jan 16, 2025
@nickrobinson251 nickrobinson251 changed the title Should a testitem be baremodule rather than a module Should a testitem be baremodule rather than a module? Jan 16, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
speculative a feature idea that we are undecided about
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant