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

fix: make directives usable in the ocaml mode #443

Open
wants to merge 1 commit into
base: main
Choose a base branch
from

Conversation

sorawee
Copy link

@sorawee sorawee commented Dec 2, 2023

Prior this PR, the following code fails:

{@ocaml ocaml[
  #require "astring";;
  let x = Astring.strf;;
]}

because MDX incorrectly infers that the code block is a toplevel interaction (from the fact that the block starts with #), resulting in an error:

incomplete toplevel entry: unexpected character '#'.
Did you forget a space after the '#' at the start of the line

It is possible to workaround this issue as suggested in #421 by adding a comment as a first line.

{@ocaml ocaml[
  (* This works! *)
  #require "astring";;
  let x = Astring.strf;;
]}

but ideally the workaround should not be needed.

One may wonder why the inference is needed, since the above code block is already specified to be in the ocaml mode.
The answer appears to be that we are expected to use the inference heuristics for a light sanity check, as the existing tests
("invalid ocaml" and "invalid toplevel" in test_block.ml) require:

"let x = 2;;" in the toplevel mode should error with
invalid toplevel syntax in toplevel blocks

"# let x = 2;;" in the ocaml mode should error with
toplevel syntax is not allowed in OCaml blocks

As a result, this PR keeps the light sanity check intact, but adjusts the inference heuristics to be more conservative. A block is now considered a toplevel interaction when it starts with # followed by a space.
This fixes the issue, making it possible to use directives. As a bonus, directives will now also work even when the mode is not specified at all. But one disadvantage is that this kind of code will no longer be considered invalid.

#1+1;;
...
#2+2;;
...

Prior this PR, the following code fails:

```
{@ocaml ocaml[
  #require "astring";;
  let x = Astring.strf;;
]}
```

because MDX incorrectly infers that the code block is a toplevel
interaction (from the fact that the block starts with `#`),
resulting in an error:

    incomplete toplevel entry: unexpected character '#'.
    Did you forget a space after the '#' at the start of the line

It is possible to workaround this issue as suggested in realworldocaml#421 by adding a
comment as a first line.

```
{@ocaml ocaml[
  (* This works! *)
  #require "astring";;
  let x = Astring.strf;;
]}
```

but ideally the workaround should not be needed.

One may wonder why the inference is needed, since the above code block
is already specified to be in the `ocaml` mode.
The answer appears to be that we are expected to use the inference heuristics
for a light sanity check, as the existing tests
("invalid ocaml" and "invalid toplevel" in `test_block.ml`) require:

    "let x = 2;;" in the toplevel mode should error with
    invalid toplevel syntax in toplevel blocks

    "# let x = 2;;" in the ocaml mode should error with
    toplevel syntax is not allowed in OCaml blocks

As a result, this PR keeps the light sanity check intact, but
adjusts the inference heuristics to be more conservative.
A block is now considered a toplevel interaction when
it starts with `#` followed by a space.
This fixes the issue, making it possible to use directives.
As a bonus, directives will now also work even when
the mode is not specified at all. But one disadvantage is that
this kind of code will no longer be considered invalid.

    realworldocaml#1+1;;
    ...
    realworldocaml#2+2;;
    ...
Copy link
Collaborator

@Julow Julow left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I always use directives with Mdx and always stumble upon this issue.

The more limited toplevel recognission is not an issue in my opinion as this is not a valid block:

```ocaml
#1+1;;
```
File "test.md", lines 1-3: Error in the toplevel code block
File "test.md", line 2, character 0: incomplete toplevel entry: unexpected character '#'. Did you forget a space after the '#' at the start of the line?

@@ -300,7 +300,7 @@ let guess_ocaml_kind contents =
| h :: t ->
let h = String.trim h in
if h = "" then aux t
else if String.length h > 1 && h.[0] = '#' then `Toplevel
else if String.length h > 2 && h.[0] = '#' && h.[1] = ' ' then `Toplevel
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

If needed, the check could be more strict as top-level directives necessarily start with a lowercase ASCII letter (or the sequence \# which is never going to be used).

@sorawee
Copy link
Author

sorawee commented Dec 4, 2023

@Julow Here's the actual result of #1+1;; after this PR:

{@ocaml[
  #1+1;;
][
{err@mdx-error[
Line 1, characters 4-5:
Error: Syntax error
]err}]}

This is because #1+1;; makes the block considered the ocaml block type due to the absence of space after #.

@samoht
Copy link
Collaborator

samoht commented Dec 6, 2024

Do you mind rebasing your changes? Thanks!

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

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants