Re: [racket-users] Re: with-continuation-marks in errortrace

2020-07-27 Thread Matthew Flatt
At Sun, 26 Jul 2020 20:21:56 -0700, Sorawee Porncharoenwase wrote: > I have been toying with another way to instrument the code. It roughly > expands to: > > (define-syntax-rule (wrap f) > (call-with-immediate-continuation-mark >'errortrace-k >(λ (k) > (let ([ff (thunk f)]) >

Re: [racket-users] Re: with-continuation-marks in errortrace

2020-07-27 Thread Shu-Hung You
Thinking about your example again, is the idea here to preserve the first (so perhaps outermost) continuation mark information, instead of the innermost continuation mark? I don't yet fully understand how this approach interacts with the evaluation of tail position expressions, but keeping both

Re: [racket-users] Re: with-continuation-marks in errortrace

2020-07-26 Thread Shu-Hung You
By changing (fact 5) to (* 2 (fact 5)), the stack information becomes /: division by zero errortrace...: /Volumes/ramdisk/fact.rkt:6:17: (/ 1 0) /Volumes/ramdisk/fact.rkt:7:12: (* (loop (sub1 n)) n) /Volumes/ramdisk/fact.rkt:7:12: (* (loop (sub1 n)) n)

[racket-users] Re: with-continuation-marks in errortrace

2020-07-26 Thread Sorawee Porncharoenwase
(By "integrating" with the new strategy, I meant having two keys: one for the new strategy and one for the old strategy. I can see that the first entry of the old strategy is useful, and it's missing in the new strategy). On Sun, Jul 26, 2020 at 8:21 PM Sorawee Porncharoenwase <