On Sun 13 Feb 2011 22:27, Noah Lavine writes:
> The attached patch does it. I almost hate to commit it because it's
> such a hack, but this is from my last Guile session:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> 'foo
> $2 = foo
> scheme@(guile-user)> 'foo ; hi there!
> $3 = foo
> scheme@(guile-user)> ; why, hell
Hello,
> Nice! Can you add a test case?
I've thought about it, and I'm not sure how to do it well. The trouble
is that this only applies to the REPL, not scripts. So a test would
have to wrap the REPL in something and make sure its output is right.
I might be able to do that, but if I just comp
Hi!
Noah Lavine writes:
> The attached patch does it. I almost hate to commit it because it's
> such a hack, but this is from my last Guile session:
>
> scheme@(guile-user)> 'foo
> $2 = foo
> scheme@(guile-user)> 'foo ; hi there!
> $3 = foo
> scheme@(guile-user)> ; why, hello!
> scheme@(guile-us
The attached patch does it. I almost hate to commit it because it's
such a hack, but this is from my last Guile session:
scheme@(guile-user)> 'foo
$2 = foo
scheme@(guile-user)> 'foo ; hi there!
$3 = foo
scheme@(guile-user)> ; why, hello!
scheme@(guile-user)> ,q
Noah
On Sun, Feb 13, 2011 at 2:19
Hi Noah,
I think it makes sense to have a reader that actually returns comments.
That, to me, is the general solution: the REPL reader just treats a
comment as whitespace.
On Sun 13 Feb 2011 16:22, Noah Lavine writes:
> - The quicker way: if the language in use is scheme, change the
> next-char
Hello all,
I was thinking about how this might be solved. I can see two ways of doing it:
- The nicer way: add a new read function (or a keyword argument to the
current read function) that can tell it to stop without returning
anything if it hits a newline and there's no more input ready on its
p
On Sat 12 Feb 2011 14:21, "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" writes:
> I'm not sure i understand this reasoning, because when there are two (or
> more) complete sexps in a line they're accepted, and a new prompt
> appears;
Of course.
1. Guile: No input available, print prompt:
guile>
2. User: one
On Sat, Feb 12 2011, Andy Wingo wrote:
> On Fri 11 Feb 2011 22:15, "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" writes:
>
>> scheme@(guile-user)> (define a 3) ;; foo
>> <- cursor stays here; no prompt
>>
>> is that intended? i'm hoping it is not, because it confuses geiser, who
>> is waiting for a new prompt to
On Fri 11 Feb 2011 22:15, "Jose A. Ortega Ruiz" writes:
> scheme@(guile-user)> (define a 3) ;; foo
> <- cursor stays here; no prompt
>
> is that intended? i'm hoping it is not, because it confuses geiser, who
> is waiting for a new prompt to mark the end of the transaction.
It would be n
