Re: [racket-users] Is there any way to redefine printf in main.rkt ?
Oog… I don’t really think dynamic-require is the right tool here at all. Setting the current-output-port seems vastly more reasonable. John > On Apr 1, 2019, at 12:19, Chansey wrote: > > More elegant way is combining with-output-to-file with dynamic-require > > (with-output-to-file FILE > (lambda () (dynamic-require "main.rkt" #f)) > ) > > On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 1:53:47 AM UTC+8, Chansey wrote: > Dear George, > > Your method is also very well. > > Because using with-output-to-file to wrapper main.rkt is enough, not must in > every module files. > > Thanks. > > On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 1:30:09 AM UTC+8, gneuner2 wrote: > > On 4/1/2019 1:09 PM, Siyuan Chen wrote: > > Dear George, > > > > This means we must modify these module code? > > > > For example: > > > > suppose in foo.rkt > > > > #lang racket > > (provide ...) > > (require ...) > > > > (define (my-func-1 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > (define (my-func-2 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > It must be modified to this? > > > > #lang racket > > (provide ...) > > (require ...) > > > > (with-output-to-file > >(lambda () > > (define (my-func-1 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > (define (my-func-2 x) > > ...printf..) > >)) > > > > It seems not very convenient... > > > > Is it possible to temporarily change global output port? > > > > Thanks. > > > Not exactly. You don't need to encapsulate the function definitions - > just the calls. IT would be more like the following: > > #lang racket > (provide ...) > (require ...) > >(define (my-func-1 x) > ...printf..) > > (define (my-func-2 x) >...printf..) > > > (with-output-to-file > (lambda () >(my-func-1 ...) >(my-func-2 ...) > ... > )) > > > But if that still is too heavyweight, the best solution is to run the > program from the command line and redirect or tee the output into a > file: e.g., > > racket [flags] program > file > or > racket [flags] program | tee file > > The exact flags to use depend on the specifics of your program (e.g., is > it a script, is it a module, etc.): > https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/running-sa.html?q=command%20line#%28part._mz-cmdline%29 > > > Note: Windows doesn't have "tee", but you can do something similar with > racket [flags] program > file 2>&1 > > George > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Racket Users" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-users] Is there any way to redefine printf in main.rkt ?
More elegant way is combining with-output-to-file with dynamic-require (with-output-to-file FILE (lambda () (dynamic-require "main.rkt" #f)) ) On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 1:53:47 AM UTC+8, Chansey wrote: > > Dear George, > > Your method is also very well. > > Because using with-output-to-file to wrapper main.rkt is enough, not must > in every module files. > > Thanks. > > On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 1:30:09 AM UTC+8, gneuner2 wrote: >> >> >> On 4/1/2019 1:09 PM, Siyuan Chen wrote: >> > Dear George, >> > >> > This means we must modify these module code? >> > >> > For example: >> > >> > suppose in foo.rkt >> > >> > #lang racket >> > (provide ...) >> > (require ...) >> > >> > (define (my-func-1 x) >> > ...printf..) >> > >> > (define (my-func-2 x) >> > ...printf..) >> > >> > It must be modified to this? >> > >> > #lang racket >> > (provide ...) >> > (require ...) >> > >> > (with-output-to-file >> >(lambda () >> > (define (my-func-1 x) >> > ...printf..) >> > >> > (define (my-func-2 x) >> > ...printf..) >> >)) >> > >> > It seems not very convenient... >> > >> > Is it possible to temporarily change global output port? >> > >> > Thanks. >> >> >> Not exactly. You don't need to encapsulate the function definitions - >> just the calls. IT would be more like the following: >> >> #lang racket >> (provide ...) >> (require ...) >> >>(define (my-func-1 x) >> ...printf..) >> >> (define (my-func-2 x) >>...printf..) >> >> >> (with-output-to-file >> (lambda () >>(my-func-1 ...) >>(my-func-2 ...) >> ... >> )) >> >> >> But if that still is too heavyweight, the best solution is to run the >> program from the command line and redirect or tee the output into a >> file: e.g., >> >> racket [flags] program > file >> or >> racket [flags] program | tee file >> >> The exact flags to use depend on the specifics of your program (e.g., is >> it a script, is it a module, etc.): >> >> https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/running-sa.html?q=command%20line#%28part._mz-cmdline%29 >> >> >> Note: Windows doesn't have "tee", but you can do something similar with >> racket [flags] program > file 2>&1 >> >> George >> >> -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-users] Is there any way to redefine printf in main.rkt ?
Dear George, Your method is also very well. Because using with-output-to-file to wrapper main.rkt is enough, not must in every module files. Thanks. On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 1:30:09 AM UTC+8, gneuner2 wrote: > > > On 4/1/2019 1:09 PM, Siyuan Chen wrote: > > Dear George, > > > > This means we must modify these module code? > > > > For example: > > > > suppose in foo.rkt > > > > #lang racket > > (provide ...) > > (require ...) > > > > (define (my-func-1 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > (define (my-func-2 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > It must be modified to this? > > > > #lang racket > > (provide ...) > > (require ...) > > > > (with-output-to-file > >(lambda () > > (define (my-func-1 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > (define (my-func-2 x) > > ...printf..) > >)) > > > > It seems not very convenient... > > > > Is it possible to temporarily change global output port? > > > > Thanks. > > > Not exactly. You don't need to encapsulate the function definitions - > just the calls. IT would be more like the following: > > #lang racket > (provide ...) > (require ...) > >(define (my-func-1 x) > ...printf..) > > (define (my-func-2 x) >...printf..) > > > (with-output-to-file > (lambda () >(my-func-1 ...) >(my-func-2 ...) > ... > )) > > > But if that still is too heavyweight, the best solution is to run the > program from the command line and redirect or tee the output into a > file: e.g., > > racket [flags] program > file > or > racket [flags] program | tee file > > The exact flags to use depend on the specifics of your program (e.g., is > it a script, is it a module, etc.): > > https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/running-sa.html?q=command%20line#%28part._mz-cmdline%29 > > > Note: Windows doesn't have "tee", but you can do something similar with > racket [flags] program > file 2>&1 > > George > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-users] Is there any way to redefine printf in main.rkt ?
Dear George, I have just found a way to solve this problem. Use (current-output-port out). But still very thank you. On Tue, Apr 2, 2019 at 1:30 AM George Neuner wrote: > > On 4/1/2019 1:09 PM, Siyuan Chen wrote: > > Dear George, > > > > This means we must modify these module code? > > > > For example: > > > > suppose in foo.rkt > > > > #lang racket > > (provide ...) > > (require ...) > > > > (define (my-func-1 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > (define (my-func-2 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > It must be modified to this? > > > > #lang racket > > (provide ...) > > (require ...) > > > > (with-output-to-file > >(lambda () > > (define (my-func-1 x) > > ...printf..) > > > > (define (my-func-2 x) > > ...printf..) > >)) > > > > It seems not very convenient... > > > > Is it possible to temporarily change global output port? > > > > Thanks. > > > Not exactly. You don't need to encapsulate the function definitions - > just the calls. IT would be more like the following: > > #lang racket > (provide ...) > (require ...) > >(define (my-func-1 x) > ...printf..) > > (define (my-func-2 x) >...printf..) > > > (with-output-to-file > (lambda () >(my-func-1 ...) >(my-func-2 ...) > ... > )) > > > But if that still is too heavyweight, the best solution is to run the > program from the command line and redirect or tee the output into a > file: e.g., > > racket [flags] program > file > or > racket [flags] program | tee file > > The exact flags to use depend on the specifics of your program (e.g., is > it a script, is it a module, etc.): > > https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/running-sa.html?q=command%20line#%28part._mz-cmdline%29 > > Note: Windows doesn't have "tee", but you can do something similar with > racket [flags] program > file 2>&1 > > George > > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-users] Is there any way to redefine printf in main.rkt ?
On 4/1/2019 1:27 PM, Chansey wrote: I've found a way. Use (current-output-port out). That will work, but it's not a good idea except as a quick hack to test something. Working in DrRacket, you may find that the output remains redirected after your program has ended (or crashed). If you want to capture output in a file, it is best to either use OS redirection, or open/close the file explicitly in your code. There are ways to specify program parameters on the command line if necessary. https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/Command-Line_Parsing.html?q=command%20line%20param George -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-users] Is there any way to redefine printf in main.rkt ?
On 4/1/2019 1:09 PM, Siyuan Chen wrote: Dear George, This means we must modify these module code? For example: suppose in foo.rkt #lang racket (provide ...) (require ...) (define (my-func-1 x) ...printf..) (define (my-func-2 x) ...printf..) It must be modified to this? #lang racket (provide ...) (require ...) (with-output-to-file (lambda () (define (my-func-1 x) ...printf..) (define (my-func-2 x) ...printf..) )) It seems not very convenient... Is it possible to temporarily change global output port? Thanks. Not exactly. You don't need to encapsulate the function definitions - just the calls. IT would be more like the following: #lang racket (provide ...) (require ...) (define (my-func-1 x) ...printf..) (define (my-func-2 x) ...printf..) (with-output-to-file (lambda () (my-func-1 ...) (my-func-2 ...) ... )) But if that still is too heavyweight, the best solution is to run the program from the command line and redirect or tee the output into a file: e.g., racket [flags] program > file or racket [flags] program | tee file The exact flags to use depend on the specifics of your program (e.g., is it a script, is it a module, etc.): https://docs.racket-lang.org/reference/running-sa.html?q=command%20line#%28part._mz-cmdline%29 Note: Windows doesn't have "tee", but you can do something similar with racket [flags] program > file 2>&1 George -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-users] Is there any way to redefine printf in main.rkt ?
I've found a way. Use (current-output-port out). On Tuesday, April 2, 2019 at 1:02:05 AM UTC+8, gneuner2 wrote: > > > On 4/1/2019 12:54 PM, Chansey wrote: > > My racket project consists of several module files (e.g.: "foo.rkt", > > "bar.rkt", ...). > > > > The entry module file is "main.rkt" > > > > These files call "printf" in different places of the code (But > > "printf" only can print messages to REPL). > > > > My question is: > > > > Is there any way to redefine "printf" in main.rkt in order to print > > messages to a file? > > "printf" doesn't write to the REPL per se - it writes to the current > output port (which may lead to the REPL). Depending on how your code is > structured, it may be as easy as: > > (with-output-to-file >(lambda () >... ;; your code here >)) > > Another choice is to use fprintf which allows to choose the output > destination. > > George > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
Re: [racket-users] Is there any way to redefine printf in main.rkt ?
On 4/1/2019 12:54 PM, Chansey wrote: My racket project consists of several module files (e.g.: "foo.rkt", "bar.rkt", ...). The entry module file is "main.rkt" These files call "printf" in different places of the code (But "printf" only can print messages to REPL). My question is: Is there any way to redefine "printf" in main.rkt in order to print messages to a file? "printf" doesn't write to the REPL per se - it writes to the current output port (which may lead to the REPL). Depending on how your code is structured, it may be as easy as: (with-output-to-file (lambda () ... ;; your code here )) Another choice is to use fprintf which allows to choose the output destination. George -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
