Why does Scribble make this assumption about sandboxes, anyway? Why can't it just deal with the other possible output formats intelligently? Read from the port if given one, use a (byte-)string if given one, and just assume no output if given #f.
If, for some reason, the best we can do is improve the error message, how about reporting it in terms of the Scribble forms we're actually using: "examples: cannot read output of given evaluator, expected a string but got: #f" Carl Eastlund On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:52 PM, Danny Yoo <d...@cs.wpi.edu> wrote: >> >> format-output: missing output, possibly from a sandbox without a >> configured `sandbox-output' >> >> I'm not happy with it -- the "format-output: ..." seems like it's too >> easy to translate to "probably some internal bug, not my problem". >> >> Any suggestions for a better message? > > I can't think of an improved text for it. The message, at the very > least, gives something to search with Google. > > I think it would help a bit to add an example in the Scribble > documentation that uses make-evaluator in the context of Scribble. > I'll send you a patch to show what I mean. > > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users _________________________________________________ For list-related administrative tasks: http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/users
