On Jun 27, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > We're talking about relative requires only, right? > > How are you proposing to signal the error?
My guess about how this works--correct me if I'm wrong--is that for unsaved buffers, DrR sets a parameter such that the expanded code has the current directory as (uh, part of?) the syntax-source of the expanded source. I'm guessing that I'm not right, or it would be as simple as disabling this for programs written in BSL et al. John > Robby > > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> On Jun 27, 2011, at 7:37 PM, John Clements wrote: >> >>> I'm fixing require in the stepper, and I want to make sure that the >>> existing behavior is desirable before I try to simulate it. In particular, >>> my experiments suggest that "require" in an unsaved buffer implicitly >>> requires things from (current-directory). Is this the right behavior? It >>> would seem to me that we'd be better off signaling an error in this case. >>> No? >> >> Yes, please signal an error. >> _________________________________________________ >> For list-related administrative tasks: >> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >>
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
