At Tue, 28 May 2013 19:36:14 -0500, Robby Findler wrote: > I don't have a good sense of what level of granularity is the right one, > but I naturally would have gone even finer grained with drracket: the > macro-debugger, pkg/gui, and maybe even the gui-debugger I would have > separated out. (Probably you were focused on lower-level things first, > tho.)
Sounds good. > Also for the macro-debugger: I think it is useful by itself, without > drracket (I would like to use it for files that in drracket's > implementation, for example). So I think there should be two packages > there: macro-debugger-standalone with the "give me a file and show the > macro debugger's result on it" interface and macro-debugger-plugin pkg that > fits into drracket. I think it's close to that in the current experiment, actually. The "macro-debugger" collection is spread across "macro-debugger-text-lib" (which is used by "xrepl-lib"), "macro-debugger" (probably close to a stand-alone application, if not there already), and "drracket" (which just has "tool.rkt"). _________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
