At Fri, 22 Jun 2012 12:50:54 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> First encounter with a new(er) error message:
>
> [... bad indentation ...]
Some error-reporting functions tried to adjust indentation, which was a
bad idea. I've removed that feature and hopefully corrected the
relevant messages.
> * Anot
An hour ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > Meanwhile, we should look more carefully at the content of
> > specific error messages to see if we can improve either the
> > wording or the information provided in fields.
First encounter with a new(er) error message:
| link: module mismatch;
| possibly, b
Yesterday, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I don't like the way these example have the error message twice:
> once in prose and one in field-and-value form. It's difficult enough
> to get either one of those right, but it's particularly difficult to
> construct prose right, which is why the new convention e
At Thu, 21 Jun 2012 05:21:38 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> To translate the errors you've written (as would be shown by the
> default display handler, when showing all fields too):
>
> > (+ 1 'a)
> +: contract violation
> `+' expected a number in its 2nd argument; given 'a
> expected: n
Four hours ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>
> I think Matthew is concerned with the code that constructs the error
> messages and being able to build strings from parts coming from
> different places..
I understood this as the continuation of the current style of error
messages, not as a technical pro
On Thu, Jun 21, 2012 at 4:21 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Three hours ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
>> I think you're asking for two changes to the error-message syntax:
>>
>> * Move srcloc back to the front of error messages.
>>
>> * Support multi-line messages: the first line is supposed to be
>>
Three hours ago, Matthew Flatt wrote:
> I think you're asking for two changes to the error-message syntax:
>
> * Move srcloc back to the front of error messages.
>
> * Support multi-line messages: the first line is supposed to be
>useful on its own, but extra lines act as a kind of detail f
I think you're asking for two changes to the error-message syntax:
* Move srcloc back to the front of error messages.
* Support multi-line messages: the first line is supposed to be useful
on its own, but extra lines act as a kind of detail field that is
nicely placed and particularly pro
Thanks. I'll give this a try as soon as possible.
At Wed, 20 Jun 2012 13:32:32 -0400, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Here's a concrete proposal for error message structe. I'll leave the
> highlevel philosophical discussion to the other threads -- but JFYI,
> it does require accepting the problems I mentio
I really like this idea. It seems to be the best of both worlds. I
agree with Robby that more information and structure is good. I also
think, with Eli, that the first line is special for humans and for
existing tools.
Jay
On Wed, Jun 20, 2012 at 11:32 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> Here's a concrete
Here's a concrete proposal for error message structe. I'll leave the
highlevel philosophical discussion to the other threads -- but JFYI,
it does require accepting the problems I mention in the "phrasing"
thread.
The general idea is that the first line of an error message is a
title, and therefor
11 matches
Mail list logo
