On Jun 27, 2011, at 5:10 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:52 AM, John Clements > <cleme...@brinckerhoff.org> wrote: >> >> 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. > > DrRacket does indeed set current-directory and could instead signal an > error instead of setting it. That would mean no unsaved file would > run, however. Is that really desired?
Would it not be possible to set the syntax-source in such a way that relative requires would fail? We may be out of DrR and into just plain R here. Indeed, I would be happy if buffers without a recorded save location couldn't make relative requires in *any* language level, though I realize that such a change would be more likely to have repercussions elsewhere. I suppose there could be situations where users dynamically create syntax objects and set the current directory rather than setting the syntax-source of the objects, though that doesn't sound like the most robust way to write the code. > > Also, this would not work for the #lang htdp/bsl versions of the > teaching languages. Because the choice of language level isn't apparent at DrR expansion-time, I'm guessing. If so, then I agree, though (if I'm correct) my more drastic solution would address this as well. John
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
