[plt-scheme] The filename of the file in the definition window

Robby Findler wrote:

>> I get
>>
>>    #<struct:object:...pper/stepper-tool.ss:618:8>
>>
>> as the result of calling object-name with the port.
>> Makes sense it doesn't work, since the contents
>> of the definition window might be unsaved.
> 
> Oh, right. This is going to change in the next release (it has already
> changed in SVN). It is now a path or a special symbol indicating that
> there is no path (if the file has never been saved).

Fine.

> Handing out that object to the user's program like that is insecure
> (they can get it out of the syntax objects). 

Ah, but I am not doing that. The plan is to let
front-end/complete-program call the external tool via
system from "process.ss", then capture the output and
convert the output to a syntax-object like this:

    #`(display #,captured-output)

The net effect is that the contents of the definition
window is "piped" through the shell command, and the
result is shown in the interaction window.

> Here's a self-modifiying
> program (note that you can do worse things, since you can go from the
> editor to the drscheme frame and thus get at lots of drscheme's
> internal state).
> 
> (define-syntax (m stx)
>   (with-syntax ([x (syntax-source stx)])
>     #'x))
> 
> (require (lib "mred.ss" "mred")
>          (lib "class.ss"))
> 
> (let* ([ed (m)]
>        [line1 (send ed get-text
>                     (send ed paragraph-start-position 0)
>                     (send ed paragraph-end-position 0))]
>        [mth (regexp-match #rx"^; ([0-9]+)" line1)]
>        [lckd (send ed is-locked?)])
>   (send ed lock #f)
>   (if mth
>       (begin
>         (send ed delete
>               (send ed paragraph-start-position 0)
>               (send ed paragraph-end-position 0))
>         (send ed insert (format "; ~a" (+ 1 (string->number (cadr mth)))) 0 0))
>       (send ed insert "; 0\n" 0 0))
>   (send ed lock lckd))

That's clever! Best hack I have seen in ages.

And of course given a filename, the same risk will be there...
... but I am willing to run the risk!

>> This leads to another question: How do I check whether the
>> contents of the definition windows has been saved?
>>
>> The reason I need the name is that I want to pass the content
>> along to an external executable.
> 
> I'm not positive, but wouldn't it be better to pass the port along?
> The port library lets you do all kind of things, like forking the port
> if it needs to go two places, etc. Also, you don't have to deal with
> the "is it saved" question.

Well, I as described above I actually want to call the external
tool via "system" from (lib "process.ss"), so I can't pass
the port along.


-- 
Jens Axel Søgaard