Yes, sorry. 1. I was hoping there would be a quick and uniform answer, but there's not. 2. We've spent a lot of time pondering how's, which is why I focused on where.
Robby, point taken, though when your program doesn't work as you expect, you're likely using the repl a lot more. Since the stepper is intended to help with that debugging process, non-integration with that is also a problem. Shriram On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 8:40 PM, John Clements <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: > > On Aug 26, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote: > >> I know Guillaume proposed to do it in the context of the editor. I'm >> unconvinced that that's the right way to go. At any rate, integrating >> into an existing bit of infrastructure (def'ns or inter's) is going to >> be much more complex than an "off-line" prototype that people can >> critique. So we should do that regardless. >> >> You and Kathy raise good and interesting points. This tells me that >> there is not yet a good answer to *where* the stepper should run. I >> believe this is quite separable from *how* the stepper runs, ie, how >> it displays the sequence of expressions. Since I feel that is >> currently the biggest problem with it, it seems wise that we focus on >> the latter for now. Once we make some real progress on that >> high-order bit, we can see what percolates up. >> >> Do others agree that this is the high-order bit? If not (and perhaps >> even if so), can you articulate why? > > I do agree. Your original message seemed to be entirely focused on the > *where* question, which I think is why it's what we've all been discussing. > > John > > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev