[plt-scheme] fluid-let-syntax may get flushed

On Aug 11, 2004, at 8:34 AM, Richard C. Cobbe wrote:
>
> If that's going away, then I'm disappointed.  Modules are great once
> you've got code that works, but the strong abstraction barriers are a
> serious, even fatal, impediment to white-box testing.  Combined with 
> the
> less-than-completely-useful result of check-syntax on a module [1], 
> it's
> enough to make me give up on the module system.  (Which would be a 
> pity,
> because then contracts would be useless.)
>
> As another possibility, what about a new language level?  I gather that
> the (module ...) language implementation reaches into the guts of the
> module, if you will, and extracts the private bindings to make them
> available to the repl.  Would it be possible to create a testing
> language that did something similar?  Specifically, it would expect the
> definitions window to contain only a single module definition, which
> would contain test cases.  The module would be written just as modules
> are now, except that it would have a special require form that would
> expose private identifiers within the module being tested.

You don't necessarily need a language level for this.  A tool might 
suffice.  I conjecture (having built many tools but no languages) that 
building a tool is simpler. The stepper works in the way you describe.

john
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2169 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/users/archive/attachments/20040811/fc185cdc/attachment.p7s>