That syntax object is passed to raise-syntax-error; is that something that the macro stepper can find?
Robby On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:25 PM, Jon Rafkind <rafk...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: > On 11/08/2011 11:18 AM, Robby Findler wrote: >> On Tue, Nov 8, 2011 at 12:17 PM, Jon Rafkind <rafk...@cs.utah.edu> wrote: >>> I guess runtime stack traces won't help. It would be nice to see all the >>> locations the syntax went through in its lifetime. Maybe it could be stored >>> as a syntax property? >> You mean you could, say, click on some subexpression in step N and >> then go back one step and find that expression (if it still exists) in >> the previous step in the stepper? > > I suppose that could be useful if that stepper showed me the last expression > that it tried to execute before the syntax error was raised. Then I would > have seen > > (... my-new-literal ...) > -> > dont use my-new-literal > > If I could click on 'my-new-literal' in the code above the arrow and keep > pressing back until I found its origin then I would be happy. Right now the > last step before the syntax error does not highlight 'my-new-literal' as the > syntax that is to be executed next. Actually even if I just saw that (the > next step to be executed with code highlighted) I could have found my issue > very quickly. > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev > _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev
