I was just trying to debug a program today that goes through a series of
complex macros. I used Check Syntax so I can see what variables are
bound where (some of which are syntax variables), and when I got stuck I
wanted to see how the macro reduces. I clicked the macro stepper, and
it spun
On 10/06/2010 12:37 PM, Everett Morse wrote:
I was just trying to debug a program today that goes through a series of
complex macros. I used Check Syntax so I can see what variables are
bound where (some of which are syntax variables), and when I got stuck I
wanted to see how the macro reduces.
I can think of many different ways to make the stepper-definition
correspondence manifest. As John said, I once suggested that the code
should be reduced in-place, in the definition window. Shriram doesn't
like that idea (but he has never bothered to say why.)
That's right, I didn't.
John Clements wrote at 08/27/2010 05:38 PM:
On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:09 PM, Ryan Culpepper wrote:
Another, less invasive, way of making the stepper-definition connection might
be on every step to scroll the definitions window and highlight the term from
which the redex is derived. For
John Clements wrote at 08/27/2010 06:29 PM:
My earlier comment isn't suggesting that this isn't useful; it's asking whether
doing this *simultaneously* with a separate display that's using substitution
to evaluate an expression would cause cognitive overload.
If none of the languages people
I like this. The Stepper becomes available as an aid to help you
answer questions about how things came to be. It is indeed often the
case that I lose the plot when stepping forward and hence go to the
end and work backward; this could put you there right away.
Yes, left-to-right scrolling
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi s...@cs.brown.edu
wrote:
Is this a fair, operational restatement of your cautionary note:
It will be much less complicated to add just a `how did I get here?'
button to the REPL and have the rest of the stepper reside in its own
window,
Understood, and agreed. Thanks!
Anyone else have comments/suggestions? I really like Robby's UI
suggestion and am treating it as the lead contender.
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Robby Findler
ro...@eecs.northwestern.edu wrote:
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 9:35 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
On Aug 26, 2010, at 11:59 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
Anyone else have comments/suggestions?
Robby's idea of allowing students to choose how a RUN actually worked occurred
to me too but I had a different behavior in mind. Instead of opening a separate
window, I'd much rather see a
I can see how to do what Mattgias is suggesting at the snip level (so
not as bad as I made out) but you won't get nested scroll bars so you
might not like it.
Robby
On Thursday, August 26, 2010, Shriram Krishnamurthi s...@cs.brown.edu wrote:
Understood. But I think this is what Robby is saying
On Aug 26, 2010, at 10:59 AM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
Got it. Thanks for all the inputs and for the great suggestion!
A couple of comments:
1) I could very well be mis-stating his position, but I think that Guillaume
felt quite strongly that the reductions should occur in the
On 26 Aug 2010, at 11:32:48, John Clements wrote:
3) It's not clear how you want to handle test cases; they don't currently
generate anything in the interactions window, and yet this sounds like the
thing that you're *most* likely to want to be able to step. For the sake of
argument, let
That seems like the wrong point of integration. If I have
(define v complex expr)
(check-expect (g v) h)
then simply stepping into (g v) may not at all be enough. If the
stepper forced people to rewrite their programs just for steppability,
that should be considered a bad design.
Shriram
Well, that makes sense.
I'm just saying that, in an ideal world, when using the DR, you're
much more writing tests that typing things into the REPL. So it would
be good if the stepper could support that better in some way.
Robby
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 7:30 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi
On Aug 26, 2010, at 5:23 PM, Shriram Krishnamurthi wrote:
I know Guillaume proposed to do it in the context of the editor. I'm
unconvinced that that's the right way to go. At any rate, integrating
into an existing bit of infrastructure (def'ns or inter's) is going to
be much more complex
15 matches
Mail list logo
