9 minutes ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> Ah, I see. Makes sense. Thanks.
[*sigh*... Meanwhile, I bit, and will do it anyway...]
> On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > An hour ago, Robby Findler wrote:
> >>
> >> This is not a good argument, if I'm understanding you correctly. I
Ah, I see. Makes sense. Thanks.
Robby
On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 6:08 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> An hour ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>>
>> This is not a good argument, if I'm understanding you correctly. I
>> think you're saying "it is too annoying to give a good error
>> message" which is not a reaso
An hour ago, Robby Findler wrote:
>
> This is not a good argument, if I'm understanding you correctly. I
> think you're saying "it is too annoying to give a good error
> message" which is not a reasonable argument.
No, I said just this:
> > That would involve changing more than I'm comfortable w
On Thu, Jun 16, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Eli Barzilay wrote:
>> If, for some reason, the best we can do is improve the error
>> message, how about reporting it in terms of the Scribble forms we're
>> actually using:
>>
>> "examples: cannot read output of given evaluator, expected a string
>> but got: #f
An hour and a half ago, Carl Eastlund wrote:
> Why does Scribble make this assumption about sandboxes, anyway? Why
> can't it just deal with the other possible output formats
> intelligently? Read from the port if given one, use a (byte-)string
> if given one, and just assume no output if given #
Why does Scribble make this assumption about sandboxes, anyway? Why
can't it just deal with the other possible output formats
intelligently? Read from the port if given one, use a (byte-)string
if given one, and just assume no output if given #f.
If, for some reason, the best we can do is improv
>
> format-output: missing output, possibly from a sandbox without a
> configured `sandbox-output'
>
> I'm not happy with it -- the "format-output: ..." seems like it's too
> easy to translate to "probably some internal bug, not my problem".
>
> Any suggestions for a better message?
I can't thin
About two weeks ago, Danny Yoo wrote:
> I survived in scribbling some documentation for a simple PLaneT
> package. [...]
>
> It fails because the basic, default evaluator doesn't know about my
> PLaneT package's bindings.
Yes, this is a very-much-intended feature -- you don't want random
example
There is a function in (planet cce/scheme:7/sandbox) called
make-scribble-module-evaluator that takes care of this. I believe I
had a version of it in unstable at one point, but it looks like it has
disappeared.
Carl Eastlund
On Fri, Jun 3, 2011 at 4:42 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
> Thank y
Thank you! I had run into the same problem today, but
I had written conditionals to get around the silly string=?
bug you mention at the end. Now I see how to do this right:
#lang scribble/base
@(require scribble/eval racket/sandbox)
@(define-syntax sexp-eval
(syntax-rules ()
[(_ d .
I survived in scribbling some documentation for a simple PLaneT
package. Here's a transcript of the struggle, just in case someone
else is having similar issues. Maybe I went about this in a
convoluted way, in which case hopefully someone can show me the easy
way to do this.
---
I want to inclu
11 matches
Mail list logo
