anonymous scopes for including files?

[mlubin]

The test suite for MathProg has a set of files which I'd like to run in isolated scopes (one of the tests is for macro hygiene). What I'd like to say is something like:

let; include("test.jl"); end

where test.jl has some using statements. However, included modules "leak" between files, probably because using is a top-level statement. I can't find a reasonable way to do this. Other options include:

• evalfile -- Backtraces are broken (they don't give a line number in the included file), so not great for a test suite.
• Wrap each test file in a named module. This works but is ugly. Anonymous modules would be reasonable here.
• @loladiro suggested the following trick:

m = Module(:__anon__)
body = Expr(:toplevel,:(ARGS=[]),:(include($testfile)))
eval(m,body)

This doesn't quite work; if testfile contains:

require("MathProg")

then for some reason, the module MathProg still won't be in scope.

There are a few different ways this could be done. I'm just asking for at least one that works nicely.

[JeffBezanson]

I would expect using MathProg instead of require to work in the last method.

[mlubin]

using MathProg does work with the last method, but in my macro hygiene test I just want to require, not use. Is it a bug that this doesn't work?

[JeffBezanson]

You can do import MathProg and that will give just the reference to the module without using its contents.

[mlubin]

Good point. Could we have a nicer syntax for this:

m = Module(:__anon__)
body = Expr(:toplevel,:(ARGS=[]),:(include($testfile)))
eval(m,body)

[JeffBezanson]

That's what evalfile does.

[Keno]

Not quite. There's the subtle difference that evalfile gives crappy backtraces and returns the last thing that was evaluated.

[mlubin]

The backtrace issue is the biggest one for me, but maybe that should be a separate issue.

[mlubin]

Fixed by b97e7cf