On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:30 PM, Robby Findler wrote: > That sounds cool to me. Now that I think about it, I think we used to > have something like this (it was a mixin tied to a specific language, > not something that worked for all #lang languages) but it was back > before we had the macro system to support it, I think. > > I imagine it would work as by having an alternative to "run" that > would just put you somehow into level 1.
That's precisely what I imagine. Better still. It would be hidden all the time unless explicitly opened. You could then use it to perhaps inspect what live CS really 'thinks.' > Probably if it is possible, it is easy. :) Possibly worth a small paper somewhere. And I am sure Ryan would/should help. > > Robby > > On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:17 PM, Matthias Felleisen > <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >> >> The first step would be a compile-time IO console. >> >> The second step would be a compile-time interaction mode. >> This would fit right in with Ryan's past work. It would mean >> compile the Def Window (as in CS) and make for-syntax values >> available at the repl for experimentation. Then again, I might >> have had too much coffee :-) >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:13 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >> >>> With a REPL? That's a lot more than I had been thinking about. I'm not >>> sure how to do it, either. >>> >>> Robby >>> >>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:12 PM, Matthias Felleisen >>> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>> >>>> May I propose a compile-time interaction window in drracket? -- Matthias >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:08 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >>>> >>>>> Well, when you do IO at compile time there isn't really a good place >>>>> to put it (at least not at the moment) so instead of making a good >>>>> place to put it, I just let it go to drracket's stdout. Probably >>>>> reasonable to consider this a bug. >>>>> >>>>> Robby >>>>> >>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:06 PM, Matthias Felleisen >>>>> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Yeap, I have live CS running all the time. Interesting effect. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 5:02 PM, Robby Findler wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Probably when you were running check syntax? (Or maybe when it was >>>>>>> being run for you?) >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Robby >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:01 PM, Matthias Felleisen >>>>>>> <matth...@ccs.neu.edu> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I am running the silly program below (no meaning), and on occasion I >>>>>>>> see the output of the *** line in the console from where I launched >>>>>>>> drracket. 5.2.0.1 from 10/16 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> #lang racket >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (require (for-syntax syntax/parse)) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (define-for-syntax (postfix stx word stem) >>>>>>>> (datum->syntax stx (string->symbol (string-append word "-" >>>>>>>> (symbol->string stem))))) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (define-syntax (define-un-serialize stx) >>>>>>>> (syntax-parse stx >>>>>>>> [(_ name:id (argument:id ...) unparser:expr parser:expr) >>>>>>>> (define serialize (postfix stx "serialize" (syntax-e #'name))) >>>>>>>> (define deserialize (postfix stx "deserialize" (syntax-e #'name))) >>>>>>>> (displayln `(,serialize ,deserialize)) ;; **** >>>>>>>> #`(define-values (#,serialize #,deserialize) >>>>>>>> (values (lambda (argument ...) unparser) >>>>>>>> (lambda (msg) parser)))])) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> (define-un-serialize f (x y) values values) >>>>>>>> _________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> For list-related administrative tasks: >>>>>>>> http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev >>>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >> >> _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev