Hi Mathieu, Mathieu Othacehe <[email protected]> skribis:
>> That would ensure we’re only changing Guile’s notion of the terminal >> width and not interfering with other tools we might launch as child >> processes. >> >> Thoughts? > > Seems like a better idea indeed. Here's an update patch. > > About using 200 or a much larger value as Danny suggested, I don't have > a strong opinion myself. WDYT? I think 200 is good. You wouldn’t want the backtrace to be filled with bytevectors, for instance. Also, if people take pictures of their screen with a backtrace, I hope there’ll still be enough stack frames on the picture. :-) With a large ‘terminal-width’, there’s a risk that a single frame would fill 10 lines. > From d5f792414d0666d554dc8c7b6fee351bbe7a1c14 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Mathieu Othacehe <[email protected]> > Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 14:05:36 +0200 > Subject: [PATCH] installer: Increase backtrace verbosity. > > * gnu/installer.scm (installer-program): Set terminal-width to 200 to > make guile backtraces more verbose. LGTM! Thank you, Ludo’.
