Mark J. Reed wrote: > Following up to a bug report, Mr Lenz wrote: > > Another detail: if i do this in the REPL, it works fine, until I close >> the REPL - then I get the same backtrace as before. >> > > ...except that this is a Rakudo bug, and Rakudo doesn't have a REPL.
BTW there's a patch for that in RT, waiting for review and application: http://rt.perl.org/rt3/Ticket/Display.html?id=61088 [...] > Pugs, of course, does have a P-ful REPL. This led me to wonder if there's > any intent to include the interactive behavior of the interpreter as part of > the spec. I can see arguments for leaving it up to the individual > implementation, but it'd also be nice to have some consistency there. > Maybe not require that there be a REPL, but supply some guidelines for how > it should behave if it exists. I think it's only worth being specified if there's really innovative going on. The standard thing (readline lib + evaluating + printing result or .perl of result) should be fairly common sense. > Since Perl 5 has no REPL, I'm not sure where such a spec would go. S20, > maybe, since the debugger is the closest thing? or maybe S19, because it defines the console interface to the rest of the world. Or just pick a not-yet-used number, S34, and have fun with it ;-) Cheers, Moritz
