319 - ack, forgot to handle blocks when tangling

Will the 'lightweight tools' really be all that useable if we encourage
people to layer them one atop another and track precisely what inputs
each can accept? Something to keep an eye on.

In the meanwhile, we have a new (but very unrealistic) example
demonstrating the tangling directives.

There's still a big constraint on ordering: before/after clauses have to
come before functions that need them.

1 files changed, 15 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/mu.arc.t b/mu.arc.t
index 069677c2..a1f0c90e 100644
--- a/mu.arc.t
+++ b/mu.arc.t
@@ -2775,4 +2775,19 @@
             (list before*!label1 after*!label1)))
   (prn "F - order matters within 'before' and 'after' fragments, but not *between* 'before' and 'after' fragments"))
 
+(reset)
+;? (new-trace "before-after-braces")
+(add-code '((after label1 [
+               ((1 integer) <- copy (0 literal))
+             ])
+            (def f1 [
+              { begin
+                label1
+              }
+             ])))
+(if (~iso function*!f1
+          '(label1
+            ((1 integer) <- copy (0 literal))))
+  (prn "F - before/after works inside blocks"))
+
 (reset)  ; end file with this to persist the trace for the final test