Hi Juliana, Juliana Sims <j...@incana.org> writes:
> Hi y'all, > Thanks for the (continued) reviews! > >> I hadn't commented on that last sentence before, but if I knew how to >> have the Guile debugger reliably break where I want it to (I don't, or >> somehow haven't managed to have it work well), I don't think using >> 'pk', >> which requires editing files before and after debugging, could be >> described as more convenient :-). > > A fair point! I can change that wording in a next version of the patch. > >> I would suggest to apply the ’pk’ on the other branch, something as: >> --8<---------------cut here---------------start------------->8--- >> (map (lambda (v) >> (if (number? v) >> (pk 'number v (number->string v)) >> v)) >> '(1 "2" "3" 4)) >> --8<---------------cut here---------------end--------------->8--- > > I'm not sure I understand how this improves the demonstration of 'pk'. > What does this form of the example demonstrate that the version in the > patch does not? It's a minor change so I'm happy to make it; I just > want to ensure that we have the best possible version of the solution > to the problem you see. I'm not sure I understand the motivation too. To me the v2 patch looked fine as-is. -- Thanks, Maxim
