I am not sure how faithful drracket should be to racket. It's clearly doable. Question is whether it's desirable.
On Jun 1, 2011, at 9:28 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > DrRacket has more control than Racket does over how the repl interacts > with it's environment so it is not broken in this manner. (unless you > think this is desireable, to be more faithful?) > > Robby > > On Wednesday, June 1, 2011, Matthias Felleisen <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> DrRacket behaves differently here. It silently ignores the expression as far >> as I can tell. >> >> >> On Jun 1, 2011, at 7:37 PM, John Clements wrote: >> >>> >>> On Jun 1, 2011, at 4:04 PM, Eduardo Bellani wrote: >>> >>>> My racket breaks if the following code is executed: >>>> >>>> (current-input-port (open-input-string "a")) >>>> >>>> with the following message: >>>> >>>> reference to undefined identifier: a >>> >>> ? >>> >>> That sounds like the right behavior to me, in an environment with a REPL. >>> That is, you set current-input-port to pull from the string "a", then you >>> drop into the REPL, which reads from stdin, producing the string "a", which >>> reads as a reference to the variable a. >>> >>> No? >>> >>> John Clements >>> >>> _________________________________________________ >>> For list-related administrative tasks: >>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >> >> >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >> _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
