On Thu, Feb 19, 2009 at 1:17 PM, Eli Barzilay <eli at barzilay.org> wrote:
> > I think that's where logging sexp (or other objects) would be > > useful. For example, have the log receiver receiving a sexp and > > immediately handle the information contained in sexp without having > > to incur the cost of parsing. > > There are at least two features of the current system that provide > answers for this: the `log-info' and its friends are macros -- they > don't do anything if there is no receiver, which makes it convenient > to give them an argument that will do whatever processing you want to > do. So you can pass around sexprs, and do whatever you want to do > with them before you turn them into strings for the output. Also, > `log-message' receives an argument that contains arbitrary > information, which you can use to hook additional bits. > Okay - I'll look into how that works. Thanks, yc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.racket-lang.org/archive/dev/attachments/20090219/a845c12a/attachment.html>
