Would bringing a browser view into DrRacket be a third way, or would that be no different? (That said the native win OS and apple OS 'help' browser viewers aren't exactly inspiring - are they a fourth option?)
S. On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 at 21:26 Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:13 PM, Eli Barzilay <e...@barzilay.org> wrote: > > On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 3:16 PM, Robby Findler > > <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> wrote: > >> > >> Oh, my apologies. I thought you meant something different. > >> > >> Yes, this works. > > > > Ah, in this case, the patch that I sent earlier should work fine. > > (I could do a pull request, but it should really be tested...) > > > >> I don't have a good idea which is the better approach now. > > > > [Bear in mind that I don't really know what the issue with the file > > permissions is (looks more like some security attributes):] > > > > I think that playing with such attributes is a worse option -- it's > > something that I'm not sure would work in all settings (but see above), > > and if there is a way to make it work now, it might not be possible in > > the future. The trampoline approach is relatively robust and well > > behaved. There is a minor price of these temporary files, but they do > > get cleaned out (whenever `send-url/contents' is called), so it should > > settle on a small number that will not grow indefinitely[*], so this is > > not a problem. > > > > Also, on the "it's already there" side -- this trampoline approach is > > already there for the windows version, and it's needed for the > > `xdg-open' thing anyway, so abstracting it into a new (internal) > > function makes sense already, so in terms of additional code there's no > > cost for doing the mac version too. > > > > > > ([*] It might be a problem if, for example, your cat sits on the f1 key > > and the os doesn't take the focus away from drracket... It might be > > useful to change it from using a random temp file to a name based on a > > hash of the forwarded url, which will further minimize the number of > > files.) > > Oh, absolutely. The two candidates are the trampoline approach and the > "just move the documentation files over into the user space as if a > package had been installed". > > I guess the latter is better because it means there will be more > homogeneity in the sets of files and whatnot, such that these kinds of > bugs will be less likely to be unnoticed by in house folk. That is, I > never noticed this problem because my documentation is already in the > user-specific place because I build from source. The other option will > make our users operate more like how my drracket operates. > > Robby > _________________________ > Racket Developers list: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev >
_________________________ Racket Developers list: http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
