Nice. If that's done there is really no need to have a notification for it in Emacs. Thanks.
Regards, Elias On 24 February 2014 22:34, Juergen Sauermann <[email protected]>wrote: > Hi, > > I believe )MORE should somehow be aligned with the display of other errors. > The theory seems to be that when an error occurs then a rather rigidly > formatted, > 3-line error output is produced: > > VALUE ERROR > a+5 > ^ > > Line 1 is the name of the error, line 2 the offending input and line 3 > showing > one or two carets marking the token in line 2 that have caused the error. > > Unfortunately line 1 is not very verbose about further details. > In this situation, )MORE may show more details about the error. > In theory, line 1 should show a + at the end when )MORE has more > information. > like in: > > VALUE ERROR+ > > I haven't done that yet, because I was not using )MORE in the beginning. > I'll add that. > > /// Jürgen > > > > > On 02/21/2014 03:47 AM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: > > Jürgen, > > I will put a check for )MORE availability in the end_input function and > display a notification in Emacs when it contains something. Would this be > the right approach? > > Regards, > Elias > > > On 20 February 2014 23:44, Juergen Sauermann < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> the normal 3-line error printout is documented by IBM and shall remain as >> is for compatibility. >> >> I will, however, put more information about errors in )MORE such as file >> names, strerror() stings and the like. >> >> Pleas feel free to indicate where the information related to errors is >> not sufficient. >> >> /// Jürgen >> >> >> >> >> On 02/20/2014 12:16 PM, Elias Mårtenson wrote: >> >> On 20 Feb 2014 18:57, "Kacper Gutowski" <[email protected]> wrote: >> > >> > On 2014-02-16 18:09:06, Juergen Sauermann wrote: >> > > Ad 1) I changed the assertions Symbol.cc to short warnings visible in >> )MORE. >> > >> > I wouldn't guess to check )MORE upon getting VALUE ERROR on shared >> > variable, but I guess it's better than failed assertion. >> >> Hmm, this makes me think about a new feature for the Emacs mode: some >> kind of warning in the modeline when there is an unread )MORE message. >> >> Would this be useful? Do you get these kinds of messages often? I rarely >> look for it. >> >> > It appears to work correctly for cooperating users now. Malicious user, >> > however, can still easily destroy other users' coupling of shared >> variables. >> > I'm not going to push for changing it right now because I don't see any >> way >> > to exploit it beyond denial of service and I'm not using shared >> variables >> > for anything serious, but I think that it should be done eventually. >> >> I suppose some proper authentication and authorisation mechanism is >> needed too. Then comes the question of encryption. Things like Kerberos is >> easy to add and is powerful. However, it does require infrastructure a lot >> of people don't have. >> >> Regards, >> Elias >> >> >> > >
