Skip to content

Apply :flycheck on def as well#1681

Merged
bakpakin merged 1 commit intojanet-lang:masterfrom
tw4452852:push-somyznopprwr
Dec 12, 2025
Merged

Apply :flycheck on def as well#1681
bakpakin merged 1 commit intojanet-lang:masterfrom
tw4452852:push-somyznopprwr

Conversation

@tw4452852
Copy link
Contributor

This is actually motivated by the investigation on janet-lang/spork#264.

With this change, we could also allow user to do something like this:

(def v :flycheck (maybe-side-effect-func ...))

If they believe maybe-side-effect-func won't cause any harm during flycheck.

Signed-off-by: Tw <tw19881113@gmail.com>
Change-Id: I7bd10cbaa838b44794f8a881b0deedd06a6a6964
@sogaiu
Copy link
Contributor

sogaiu commented Dec 12, 2025

I'm still familiarizing myself with janet's flycheck bits so likely others are better at reviewing this, but it seems like a nice idea.

Any hints about what ve is supposed to stand for? May be "value" or "variable" entry?

I guess that fc is short for "flycheck".


On a side note, I think the CI thing may be similar to what's described here: janet-lang/spork#258.

I've made a separate PR for that here.

@tw4452852
Copy link
Contributor Author

Any hints about what ve is supposed to stand for? May be "value" or "variable" entry?

I originally regard it as variable's environment , maybe variable's metadata is more appropriate? I'm so poor at naming...

I guess that fc is short for "flycheck".

Yep.

@sogaiu
Copy link
Contributor

sogaiu commented Dec 12, 2025

Thanks for the clarification.

FWIW, it seems like there is precedent for entry in boot.janet, e.g.:

@bakpakin
Copy link
Member

Looks pretty good to me, good for one off fixes to make things pass flychecking.

@bakpakin bakpakin merged commit 01ac5c3 into janet-lang:master Dec 12, 2025
12 of 13 checks passed
@tw4452852 tw4452852 deleted the push-somyznopprwr branch December 12, 2025 04:06
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