> Perhaps instead of saving an image, it should be able to save a transcript > of the REPL inputs? Then you could rescue code from this, or find any cruft > your image had become dependent on, or whatever.
The only problem I see with this approach is that you leave it up to the user (me) to sort though this transcript and try to reproduce the latest version of the image. A function may be redefined many times and the only version I'd _usually_ care about is the latest. This is typically because the latest definition encompasses the latest understanding of the problem or solution. Having said that, it's better than nothing. There are certainly times when I need to backtrack to previous definitions when I've down down the wrong path. Having a transcript is better than where I'm at today. On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 12:00 PM, John Harrop<jharrop...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 5:14 AM, Robert Campbell <rrc...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> Thanks Daniel, that makes perfect sense, especially about having >> random - and forgotten - code in the image. I have a lot of this >> during my exploration sessions. > > Perhaps instead of saving an image, it should be able to save a transcript > of the REPL inputs? Then you could rescue code from this, or find any cruft > your image had become dependent on, or whatever. > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
