Either of these work, but they are a lot of work for a convience
feature like *e:
(.printStackTrace *e *err*)
(.printStackTrace *e (java.io.PrintWriter. *out*))
This helps, so *e will have verbose printing in the REPL:
(defmethod print-method Throwable [#^Throwable t, #^java.io.Writer w]
(if *p
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 6:14 PM, Chouser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Allen Rohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> It's odd to me that that the stack traces were only removed in a few
>> instances. There are still plenty of places that do print traces.
>
> Such
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 3:50 PM, Allen Rohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> It's odd to me that that the stack traces were only removed in a few
> instances. There are still plenty of places that do print traces.
Such as where? I haven't seen any at the repl in a while. If a .clj
file loaded f
It's odd to me that that the stack traces were only removed in a few
instances. There are still plenty of places that do print traces.
I'm all in favor of getting rid of the "meaningless" stack traces,
once we have better error reporting.
Allen
On Oct 11, 2:36 pm, Chouser <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wr
On Sat, Oct 11, 2008 at 1:26 PM, Allen Rohner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> If you exercise the bug in my previous post about resultset-seq, the
> repl will not print a stack trace, it will only print the name of the
> exception and the message.
That's a feature! I recent one, no less.
Serious
