On Fri, Sep 11, 2009 at 3:59 AM, Michael Sperber <sper...@deinprogramm.de> wrote: > > Robby Findler <ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu> writes: > >> -- the call to exn? in that with handlers should probably be >> exn:fail?. The only difference here is probably that breaks will not >> be handled (when it is exn:fail?) which means that clicking the stop >> button won't make the code go into this handler, which seems like a >> good thing. I have committed this change. > > Sure. I kind of liked the behavior with the user break, but it's not a > big deal.
But if I double click the break button (for example), it won't work; it will just corrupt the stack trace (not that the stack trace matters for the teaching languages of course). >> -- the "uncaught exn: #f" message seems to stem from the fact that the >> body of this function always calls (raise #f) when a test case fails. >> I have no idea why it does that, but I changed (raise exn) to (when >> exn (raise exn)). Someone who knows this code (if a single such a >> person exists) should probably check that over. This is what I did to >> fix PR 10438. I have also committed this change, but in a second >> commit. > > I sure am responsible for this; I don't know what got into me. Sorry. > > I think everything related to `check-expect' is OK now: > > PR10435: Pilot error; I've closed this after clarifying the documentation. > PR10437: Fixed by Kathy > PR10438: Robby's fix was good, I've clarified the code a wee bit. > PR10440: Like everyone else, I can't reproduce. > > Thanks to Robby and Kathy for fixing things! > > Please be sure to let me know if there's anything else that needs > fixing. Thanks for your help, Mike. Robby _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
