Woah, you're good Robby!<br>Now that you mention it, it's true that I see this blue box more often.<br><br>Well, then, if at some point you feel like coloring contracts... ;)<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 4:30 PM, Robby Findler <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:robby@eecs.northwestern.edu" target="_blank">robby@eecs.northwestern.edu</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Actually, the documentation blue boxes thing in the upper-right corner<br>
(is that also what you're referring to by the identifier information<br>
rectangle) does this. I did it as kind of an experiment to see how<br>
well that approach would work. It seems to be going okay so far, and<br>
it could be generalized to handle colors or other such information<br>
that is probably not invalidated by an edit, while we wait for latest<br>
online check syntax information to come back. Right now, when you edit<br>
the buffer, it only invalidates the blue boxes for the editor ranges<br>
that were actually edited. For example, if you have<br>
<br>
(define x (list 1 2 3))<br>
<br>
and you change the program to<br>
<br>
(define x (liPQRst 1 2 3))<br>
<br>
then the "define" blue box sticks around (until the check syntax<br>
results come back saying the entire buffer is bogus).<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
Robby<br>
</font></span><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 9:21 AM, Laurent <<a href="mailto:laurent.orseau@gmail.com">laurent.orseau@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
><br>
>><br>
>> I'm not sure if that's the best thing, but<br>
>> the reason I did it that was was to avoid colors flashing around, as<br>
>> the check syntax information comes and goes as you edit the buffer.<br>
><br>
><br>
> Ah yes, there might be this problem indeed.<br>
> Maybe it could be possible to keep a "partial" state of the syntax checker,<br>
> and only discard the parts that are being edited, until the document can be<br>
> checked entirely, possibly with a warning at the bottom right saying that<br>
> the syntax checker is not currently in sync.<br>
> That would help for the contract coloring as well as for the identifier<br>
> information rectangle, but I'm not sure this is easy to implement.<br>
><br>
> Laurent<br>
><br>
>><br>
>> Robby<br>
>><br>
>> On Sun, Nov 11, 2012 at 8:57 AM, Laurent <<a href="mailto:laurent.orseau@gmail.com">laurent.orseau@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> > Hi,<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Starting my Xmas wish list:<br>
>> > In case some developer doesn't know what to do (sure...), I think it<br>
>> > would<br>
>> > be visually quite helpful if contracts could be syntax-colored, for<br>
>> > example<br>
>> > in lighter blue. That would help quickly distinguish between the actual<br>
>> > code<br>
>> > and the debugging code.<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Thanks :)<br>
>> > Laurent<br>
>> ><br>
>> > ____________________<br>
>> > Racket Users list:<br>
>> > <a href="http://lists.racket-lang.org/users" target="_blank">http://lists.racket-lang.org/users</a><br>
>> ><br>
><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>