cool. I wouldn't mind seeing some of those shell-helpful libraries becoming documented/stable (if they aren't already)...
repl does go with emacs in my mind. the vim way (edit, save, re-run script) trades things off differently. repl: - evaluate expressions without wrapping them in procedures / printing out their values - don't need to recompile everything for a small change no repl: - definitions aren't side effects / static environments - less dependent on editor support On Tue, Jun 2, 2009 at 6:57 PM, Derick Eddington <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 2009-06-02 at 17:43 +1000, Ramana Kumar wrote: >> I don't use the repl much, or at all (typically only to check whether >> some function is available, or its argument order,... or as a >> calculator), partly because I'm averse to the idea of "repl state" but >> mostly because I like working with text in vim rather than rlwrap >> (even in vi mode). > > I use the REPL a lot. I use it for trying out things I'm making as I'm > making them, for playing with ideas, as the most awesome calculator, for > making demonstrations, and I use it for non-trivial "shell" tasks > because Scheme + some of my libraries makes complicated tasks easy :) I > used rlwrap for a while, until I couldn't take it anymore, then I made > an Emacs REPL mode library which works for any Scheme system, and now I > multi-line edit REPL code just as wonderfully as file code :) Check out > the attached screenshot. > > -- > : Derick > ---------------------------------------------------------------- >
