On Thu, Apr 23, 2009 at 1:46 AM, Michael Sperber <sper...@deinprogramm.de> wrote: > > Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> writes: > >> This I'm not sure. I see that creating a distribution archive with a >> 'check-expect' expression in just ignore the check-expects, so maybe >> there is special-case code in there already that takes care of >> everything. >> >> If you didn't add any 'require's to the string-constants library, then >> you're probably safe. If creation of executables still works, then >> you're probably safe. > > Creating an executable (on MacOS) (and running it) works fine for me. > Anything specific I should test? Of course, I didn't add any requires > to the string-constants itself. I just added some string constants. > > So let me see whether I have a clue what Eli and you are talking about: > > You're concerned that string-constantizing the test engine would > introduce dependencies for HtDP programs that weren't previously there, > that would create problems in some scenarios. Is that correct?
Yes, > If so, is there documentation or anything that describes what > dependencies are OK and which one's aren't? I believe Eli maintains this information. Generally the way it works is someone adds require somewhere that breaks things and Eli lets them know when a script fails somewhere. I don't know if the precise list is available on the web, but I'm sure Eli would be more than happy to make it be so if it isn't. > In the discussion, you seem > to be implying knowledge of that, and therefore I don't understand what > you're talking about. If the dependency on string-constants is not OK, > why isn't the require of string-constants in test-display.scm a problem? If you can create executables with your patch and things are working fine and if you didn't introduce any new requires, then I don't see how your change could have created a (new) problem. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
