On Sun 01 Jul 2018 18:26, l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: > Hello, > > David Pirotte <da...@altosw.be> skribis: > >> From d920d22efe3e77d23004122e21cec420c402f531 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 >> From: David Pirotte <da...@altosw.be> >> Date: Mon, 11 Dec 2017 21:28:24 -0200 >> Subject: [PATCH] Updating repl-print to use truncated-print >> >> * module/system/repl/common.scm (repl-print): Use (truncated-print val), >> not (write val). With this update, repl-print becomes 'friendly' wrt >> large (huge) lists, arrays, srfi-4 butevoectors ... > > Note that it’s already possible to do this: > > scheme@(guile-user)> ,use (ice-9 pretty-print) > scheme@(guile-user)> ,o print (lambda (repl obj) (truncated-print obj) > (newline)) > scheme@(guile-user)> (iota 500) > $20 = (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 > 27 # …) > > So the question becomes: should we change the default? > > I have a slight preference for keeping the default as it is to avoid > surprises, but no strong opinion. > > Andy, Mark, others, WDYT?
Hoo, I don't know. If we were to do this it should be controllable by REPL options, I think; we'd need the ability to go back and forth. But if we have the option I think it could make sense for it to be on by default, like what GDB does. Thing is, truncated-print does its job only OK, not great, so it's a hard sell to standardize on it. You probably do want multi-line prints sometimes... Andy
