An hour ago, Eli Barzilay wrote:
> > Meanwhile, we should look more carefully at the content of
> > specific error messages to see if we can improve either the
> > wording or the information provided in fields.
First encounter with a new(er) error message:
| link: module mismatch;
| possibly, bytecode file needs re-compile because dependencies changed
| importing module: "/home/eli/src/plt/collects/mzlib/runtime-path.rkt"
| exporting module: "/home/eli/src/plt/collects/racket/private/string.rkt"
| exporting phase level: 0
| internal explanation: variable not provided (directly or indirectly and at
the expected position)
| in: regexp-split
| context...:
| /home/eli/src/plt/collects/mzlib/runtime-path.rkt: [running body]
| standard-module-name-resolver
| /home/eli/src/plt/collects/racket/unit.rkt: [traversing imports]
| /home/eli/src/plt/collects/racket/main.rkt: [traversing imports]
| /home/eli/src/plt/collects/racket/init.rkt: [traversing imports]
| /home/eli/.racketrc:3:0: #%top-interaction: unbound identifier;
| also, no #%app syntax transformer is bound
| at: #%top-interaction
| in: (#%top-interaction require xrepl)
* the first batch of fields are indented by three spaces instead of
two spaces in the following two fields.
* the second explanation line is indented by two spaces in the first
error and by one space in the next.
* Sidenote: seeing two errors like that makes me prefer a two-space
indentation for these things to make it more clear.
* Another sidenote: having the first line end with a ";" makes the
semicolons on the next line be a better choice, should this be
the common way to do these error messages? Perhaps the existence of
a ";" on the first line should say that the next line is the further
explanation thing which would make it optional? (Specifically
making many existing uses of `error' compatible.)
--
((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay:
http://barzilay.org/ Maze is Life!
_________________________
Racket Developers list:
http://lists.racket-lang.org/dev
