Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread Eli Barzilay
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:30 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users > wrote: >> >> IIUC, it sounds like both you and Sam are suggesting the same >> thing. I think this *could* cause

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On May 4, 2016, at 2:36 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:30 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users > wrote: >> >>> On May 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, May 4, 2016

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:30 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote: > >> On May 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Clements >> wrote: >>> >>> So, I’d say this is

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On May 4, 2016, at 2:24 PM, Eli Barzilay wrote: > > On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Clements > wrote: >> >> So, I’d say this is basically an ergonomics issue. If we change this >> code to raise a new exception, then it might potentially

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On May 4, 2016, at 2:20 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > I am opposed to breaking backwards compatibility for this. > > However, one possibility would be to do the thing I suggested _iff_ > the exception is non-transparent. Then everything that works would > keep

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread Eli Barzilay
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Clements wrote: > > So, I’d say this is basically an ergonomics issue. If we change this > code to raise a new exception, then it might potentially confuse a > handin-server-checker-writer, who expects (e.g.) to see a >

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
I am opposed to breaking backwards compatibility for this. However, one possibility would be to do the thing I suggested _iff_ the exception is non-transparent. Then everything that works would keep working, and future issues like this would not arise. Sam On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 5:12 PM, 'John

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread Eli Barzilay
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:14 PM, John Clements wrote: > >> On May 4, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking >> seems wrong to me. If it wants an exception with a

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
On Wed, May 4, 2016 at 1:14 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote: > >> On May 4, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: >> >> That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking seems >> wrong to me. If it wants

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On May 4, 2016, at 9:59 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking seems > wrong to me. If it wants an exception with a different message, it should > just create that, rather than assuming that all

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
That seems fine, but the general approach the handin-server is taking seems wrong to me. If it wants an exception with a different message, it should just create that, rather than assuming that all exception structures are reasonable to modify. Sam On Wed, May 4, 2016, 12:52 PM 'John Clements'

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-05-04 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
Bump. Okay if I make a pull request to make ‘match’ exceptions transparent? I see that all of the ones listed in 10.2.5 are transparent. John > On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:08 PM, John Clements wrote: > > >> On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-04-27 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On Apr 27, 2016, at 3:01 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote: > > The exceptions raised by `match` are indeed not transparent. But I > don't understand why they need to be in order for the handin server to > handle them properly. (caveat: this is my reading of the code below)

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-04-27 Thread Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
The exceptions raised by `match` are indeed not transparent. But I don't understand why they need to be in order for the handin server to handle them properly. Sam On Wed, Apr 27, 2016 at 5:58 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users wrote: > >> On Apr 22, 2016, at

Re: [racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-04-27 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
> On Apr 22, 2016, at 1:47 PM, 'John Clements' via Racket Users > wrote: > > Currently, the handin-server runs student expressions in an ‘eval’ which > intercepts errors and re-raises them with a message that includes the failing > expression. All good. > >

[racket-users] opinion needed on best fix for handin-server problem

2016-04-22 Thread 'John Clements' via Racket Users
Currently, the handin-server runs student expressions in an ‘eval’ which intercepts errors and re-raises them with a message that includes the failing expression. All good. However, it doesn’t catch all of them. Specifically, if the exception contains any values that are opaque to