[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?
From: |
Arne Babenhauserheide |
Subject: |
Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode? |
Date: |
Fri, 21 Feb 2020 09:41:55 +0100 |
User-agent: |
mu4e 1.2.0; emacs 26.1 |
Jose A. Ortega Ruiz <address@hidden> writes:
> we don't continuously evaluate
> what you write in a buffer. writing something by mistake in use-modules
> would then pollute the whole namespace, invisibly if one later removes
> the use-modules subclause. maybe that flymake/flycheck function will do
> that for you? (to be honest, it's not something i find natural, so i'd
> add it to geiser only if someone else contributes it and it's an
> opt-in).
Would it be possible to recognize when something is removed from
use-modules and to re-evaluate the whole file in a fresh REPL then?
Basically what I want is the quality of configuration-free
auto-completion I get in IntelliJ for Java. And I know that that’s a
very high bar. Avoiding the need for extra-actions is also important for
new users, because it reduces the amount of extra-actions needed to
start working efficiently.
Would it be possible to re-evaluate on save?
(defun re-evaluate-buffer () …)
(add-hook 'after-save-hook 're-evaluate-buffer)
Best wishes,
Arne
--
Unpolitisch sein
heißt politisch sein
ohne es zu merken
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, (continued)
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, sirgazil, 2020/02/18
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, Ricardo Wurmus, 2020/02/19
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, sirgazil, 2020/02/20
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz, 2020/02/20
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, sirgazil, 2020/02/20
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz, 2020/02/20
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?,
Arne Babenhauserheide <=
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz, 2020/02/21
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, Pierre Neidhardt, 2020/02/08
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, Jose A. Ortega Ruiz, 2020/02/07
- Re: Geiser vs. guile-mode?, Pierre Neidhardt, 2020/02/14