I think Eli's asking 'why not do (log-info (format "~s" my-sexp))?'. Right?
Robby On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 12:07 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote: > On Feb 19, Dave Herman wrote: >> The `log-message' procedure (etc.) would need to be generalized from >> taking a string to taking an S-expression, but this would require >> one backwards-incompatible change: the system would have to `write' >> the data, not `display' it. Otherwise you'd get entries like >> >> (foo #t 42 don't tell anyone. hello, world) >> >> Logging is still a pretty new feature, so I bet it's not too late to >> make this change. Opinions? > > But the thing that actually goes out to the log *is* just a string, so > the above suggestion makes it impossible to use it. IOW, writing > strings allow writing sexprs but not the other way. IYOW, you can > write sexprs now, but given that change you won't be able to write > strings. > > -- > ((lambda (x) (x x)) (lambda (x) (x x))) Eli Barzilay: > http://www.barzilay.org/ Maze is Life! > _________________________________________________ > For list-related administrative tasks: > http://list.cs.brown.edu/mailman/listinfo/plt-dev >
