BSL’s IA doesn’t even do definitions. That’s the whole point.
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:13 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt wrote:
>
> That seems to me to be an issue with navigation in the stepper (which
> I'd also love to have improved). But I wouldn't want to fix that by
> asking people to first copy
That seems to me to be an issue with navigation in the stepper (which
I'd also love to have improved). But I wouldn't want to fix that by
asking people to first copy-and-paste things to the interactions
window.
Sam
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 5:01 PM, Robby Findler
wrote:
> I don't agree with this a
The old interface to the stepper could be preserved as a package.
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 5:01 PM, Robby Findler
> wrote:
>
> I don't agree with this at all.
>
> Being forced to step through N check-expressions to get to the one you
> care about it is not a feature to be preserved.
>
> Robb
I don't agree with this at all.
Being forced to step through N check-expressions to get to the one you
care about it is not a feature to be preserved.
Robby
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> I wouldn't want to give up stepping the definitions window. When a
> studen
I wouldn't want to give up stepping the definitions window. When a
student has a question about how something they've written works, it's
usually written down in the definitions window, and I like being able
to just start stepping that. More generally, I just don't use the
interactions window that
The difference is that we can simplify the stepper if all we ever evaluate are
expressions in the IA. For example, the check-syntax problem could go away.
I suspect the simplified presentation would also become more accessible to most
students than the current evaluation of many little express
I was thinking that the button at the top works the same as now, and
that while it's open, everything goes to the stepper. That would work
well for me in class.
Sam
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:52 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
> How do you open the stepper window in the first place? I think the s
How do you open the stepper window in the first place? I think the stepper
button for the DA could go away. That would simplify John’s life a bit. But if
you are saying
— the button in the IA opens the stepper window
— and the stepper works until closed
I am fine with that too.
> On
What if entering expressions at the interactions window _while the
stepper window is open_ caused them to be stepped?
Sam
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Matthias Felleisen
wrote:
>
>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 4:44 PM, John Clements wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Matthias Felleisen
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 4:44 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
>>
>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Matthias Felleisen
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:20 PM, John Clements
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I think you probably want an interface that steps a single expression and
>>> then reverts to th
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:32 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:20 PM, John Clements wrote:
>>
>> I think you probably want an interface that steps a single expression and
>> then reverts to the standard mode.
>
>
> Exactly.
>
> My preference would be to have a ‘b
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 3:20 PM, John Clements wrote:
>
> I think you probably want an interface that steps a single expression and
> then reverts to the standard mode.
Exactly.
My preference would be to have a ‘button’ like feature at the top-right of the
IA for *SLs. By default, it is dis
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 12:08 PM, Matthias Felleisen wrote:
>
>
> p.s. The only reason we cope with this at all is only because we don’t launch
> the stepper from the REPL. If we could set the Interactions Window to ‘RUN’
> or ‘STEP’ mode and then say
>
>> (f 10)
>
> and the stepper would po
p.s. The only reason we cope with this at all is only because we don’t launch
the stepper from the REPL. If we could set the Interactions Window to ‘RUN’ or
‘STEP’ mode and then say
> (f 10)
and the stepper would pop up to show this (in an appropriate, evaluated
definition context) we could
We need to differentiate between ‘semantics’ (calculations) and ‘rendering the
result’ (printing at the repl). I suspect that the reduction from (check-expect
7 7) to #true might be overkill for students, though not something they will
spend much time on. We could also say that (c-e 9 9) reduce
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:44 AM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
> wrote:
>
> When teaching, I've personally found the reduction to #true confusing,
> and something that I can't explain to my students. So I'd prefer that
> it go away entirely, rather than happening more.
Before implementing this, one note:
I think that the reduction is good, but the #true appearing is bad. Right?
Robby
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 1:44 PM, Sam Tobin-Hochstadt
wrote:
> When teaching, I've personally found the reduction to #true confusing,
> and something that I can't explain to my students. So I'd prefer that
> it go aw
When teaching, I've personally found the reduction to #true confusing,
and something that I can't explain to my students. So I'd prefer that
it go away entirely, rather than happening more.
Sam
On Thu, Oct 20, 2016 at 2:35 PM, Vincent St-Amour
wrote:
> Reducing to something, rather than disappea
> On Oct 20, 2016, at 11:35 AM, Vincent St-Amour
> wrote:
>
> Reducing to something, rather than disappearing, does sound like a good
> idea to me.
>
> On the other hand, one may expect something that reduces to `#true` to
> print `#true` to the interactions window, which isn't what happens.
Reducing to something, rather than disappearing, does sound like a good
idea to me.
On the other hand, one may expect something that reduces to `#true` to
print `#true` to the interactions window, which isn't what happens.
Vincent
On Thu, 20 Oct 2016 13:33:19 -0500,
Racket Users wrote:
>
> I’
I’m trying to clean up some code near where Mike Sperber discovered a stepper
bug, and I accidentally made a change that I think actually improves the
stepper.
Specifically, in the past, the step from, e.g., (check-expect 13 13) to #true
was silently omitted. So, for instance, if you wrote th
21 matches
Mail list logo