> > For commands with no output, they display a result in the minibuffer. > > For commands with output, whether or not there is an error, they split a > > debug window and display their results and output there. Is this > > behavior intended? > > yes. the debug window is the recipient of output. due to > implementation reasons (the communications between the repl process and > emacs use the process's sttandard input/output), the output of an > evaluation cannot be shown in the repl buffer. > > > Regardless, I'd like to change it so that these commands just send their > > contents to the REPL. > > sorry, but i'm afraid this is not currently possible (see above).
Okay, good to know. > i'm not sure i understand correctly, but are your commands writing their > results to stdout and that's why you need syntax highlighting? when you > simply evalutate a scheme value, without writing to stdout (which is the > regular operation for me), the evaluated value appears in the > mini-buffer with syntax highlighting, and also in the debug window with > syntax highlighting (but the window is not shown most of the time). > > in my case, it's very rare that my evaluations write to stdout (i.e., i > almost never evaluate things like (display foo) or (write bar)), but > certainly YMMV. Yes, I do have some things writing to stdout, mainly for debug/development purposes. However, the bigger issue when I evaluate something that causes errors. The lack of syntax highlighting makes the trace much harder to read., and because it's long I'd prefer not to have it in a half window. I have not really established my workflow here, so I think all of this is fine and I can figure out what I really want. On reflection, a lot of the trouble comes because in what I'm working on now, I occasionally have top-level definitions of data (like a list or hash-table, not a function). So code mistakes would be likely to produce errors immediately when these are evaluated, whereas functions would be defined okay (with C-c C-c) and then signal errors when I test their use (in the actual REPL buffer). Probably I can fix this by adjusting my coding and/or debug style a little bit. Thanks for your help! Scott On Fri, Feb 24, 2017, at 23:21, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz wrote: > On Fri, Feb 24 2017, Scott Messick wrote: > > > I'm trying to start using Geiser with Chicken (new to both, but I have > > used SLIME in the past and very briefly used Geiser with Racket). > > > > The eval commands such as C-c C-c or C-c C-b seem to never use the REPL. > > they are not designed to use its buffer. the repl's process is of > course used to perform the evaluation, and obtain their results. > > > For commands with no output, they display a result in the minibuffer. > > For commands with output, whether or not there is an error, they split a > > debug window and display their results and output there. Is this > > behavior intended? > > yes. the debug window is the recipient of output. due to > implementation reasons (the communications between the repl process and > emacs use the process's sttandard input/output), the output of an > evaluation cannot be shown in the repl buffer. > > > Regardless, I'd like to change it so that these commands just send their > > contents to the REPL. > > sorry, but i'm afraid this is not currently possible (see above). > > > Is there a simple way to do this? The debug windows, apart from being > > annoying, also seem useless: lack of syntax highlighting makes them > > hard to read. I'm not sure if that's just an issue with my setup, > > though. > > i'm not sure i understand correctly, but are your commands writing their > results to stdout and that's why you need syntax highlighting? when you > simply evalutate a scheme value, without writing to stdout (which is the > regular operation for me), the evaluated value appears in the > mini-buffer with syntax highlighting, and also in the debug window with > syntax highlighting (but the window is not shown most of the time). > > in my case, it's very rare that my evaluations write to stdout (i.e., i > almost never evaluate things like (display foo) or (write bar)), but > certainly YMMV. > > and certainly i might be misunderstanding :) > > hope this helps a bit, > > cheers, > jao > -- > If a listener nods his head when you're explaining your program, wake > him up. > - Alan Perlis, Epigrams on Programming >
