Would using 'racket/trace' be a valid way to do this? (require racket/trace)
(define (foo) ...) (trace foo) ;; in repl (foo) then ,bt Would it be correct to say that the error traces functionality has been delegated to libraries in order to make things more flexible? (Rather than baked into the repl) On Wednesday, July 24, 2019 at 11:45:47 AM UTC+10, Anthony Quizon wrote: > > I've been trying to find a way to get better error messages in the racket > repl via the command line. > Specifically, better stack traces. At the moment, if you load a file in > the repl via ',enter' it doesn't give you any information about the line > number for errors. > > I've looked around in the users group but could only find: > racket -l errortrace -t <filename>.rkt > > This is pretty much what I'm looking for except that it only lets me use > this once and non-interactively. > > Is there an option in the (x)repl that lets me use errortrace > interactively for each input? > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Racket Users" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to racket-users+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/racket-users/9c6e6883-f83d-4b6f-88d1-116af75af2be%40googlegroups.com.
