[racket-dev] Should BSL signal an error on (require ...) in an unsaved buffer?

From: John Clements (clements at brinckerhoff.org)
Date: Mon Jun 27 19:52:01 EDT 2011

On Jun 27, 2011, at 4:45 PM, Robby Findler wrote:

> We're talking about relative requires only, right?
> How are you proposing to signal the error?

My guess about how this works--correct me if I'm wrong--is that for unsaved buffers, DrR sets a parameter such that the expanded code has the current directory as (uh, part of?) the syntax-source of the expanded source.  I'm guessing that I'm not right, or it would be as simple as disabling this for programs written in BSL et al.


> Robby
> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 7:39 AM, Matthias Felleisen
> <matthias at ccs.neu.edu> wrote:
>> On Jun 27, 2011, at 7:37 PM, John Clements wrote:
>>> I'm fixing require in the stepper, and I want to make sure that the existing behavior is desirable before I try to simulate it.  In particular, my experiments suggest that "require" in an unsaved buffer implicitly requires things from (current-directory). Is this the right behavior? It would seem to me that we'd be better off signaling an error in this case.  No?
>> Yes, please signal an error.
>> _________________________________________________
>>  For list-related administrative tasks:
>>  http://lists.racket-lang.org/listinfo/dev

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 4624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev/archive/attachments/20110627/0eedf3ce/attachment.p7s>

Posted on the dev mailing list.