At Fri, 02 Apr 2010 16:00:08 -0600, Jon Rafkind wrote: > Language-Specific Run-Time Configuration > > ---------------------------------------- > > > > Proposal: The main language of a program should determine a run-time > > configuration, including the style for printing values. > > ... > > The different `define-struct's are easily support through different > > bindings imported by `scheme' and `racket'. Similarly, for printing > > top-level results in a module, you might imagine that `scheme' and > > `racket' use different printing functions. The different error formats, > > however, are not so easily controlled through bindings. > > > > > > It seems more elegant to me for error formats to be controlled via > bindings. What difficulties arise in doing so? > > I mean, can't the error functions do something like > > (define (error . v) > (parameterize ([quase-quote #t]) > ...))
The initial error-producing examples called `+', not `error'. If you want to vary the value-printing format by binding, then you'd need N versions of every function for N value-printing formats. Also, in the "s.ss" and "r.rkt" example, I think it's a feature to have the error messages produced by `s-bad' or `r-bad' to depend on the main language of the program, and not the language in which `r-bad' and `s-bad' happen to be implemented. _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev
