[plt-scheme] Error reporting and batch compilation

On Aug 11, 2004, at 1:08 PM, Joe Marshall wrote:

>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>
> "Richard C. Cobbe" <cobbe at ccs.neu.edu> writes:
>
>>   For list-related administrative tasks:
>>   http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-scheme
>>
>> Lo, on Wednesday, August 11, Matthias Felleisen did write:
>>
>>> The C people didn't get this any "rigther" than the Scheme people.
>>> They were forced to report as many type and syntax errors in one
>>> pass as possible because they were and are batch people, who just
>>> don't understand how incremental work helps people.
>>
>> Right, but as execution time increases, the distinction between batch
>> and interactive development decreases.  It's really not very hard to
>> write a Scheme program whose execution time (by which I mean time
>> between hitting the `execute' button and getting a prompt back) is
>> comparable to running make.
>>
>> If someone can suggest a testing strategy that doesn't require hitting
>> execute after every change (or even most of them), then I'd love to 
>> hear
>> about it.
>
> In other Scheme and Lisp systems, hitting an error doesn't return you
> to top level.  Instead, it creates a nested REPL with a continuation
> that re-attempts whatever caused the error.  Within this nested REPL,
> you can edit and debug the code and proceed without losing your state.

I don't see how this is relevant to Richard's issue; he wants (or is 
discussing) continuous background testing, esp. to catch syntactic 
errors (where this thread started); how does the system you describe 
help you with this?

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/20040811/19fc6191/attachment.p7s>