Requesting input on some possible low-level changes

James Amundson wrote:

>
>
>As you can see, it isn't very complicated. According to (my reading of)
>the ANSI spec, all the above is missing is the variables *, **, ***, +,
>++, +++, /, //, /// and -. I intend to implement them, but have not yet
>done so.
>
>Of course, the whole point of introducing maxima-read-eval-print-loop
>would be to have hooks for indicating that input is required. I haven't
>added any hooks yet, however.
>
>What am I missing?
>
>--Jim
>
>

The debugging REPL in Allegro Common Lisp is rather more elaborate, with 
backtraces, access to local variables, and a zillion other things that I 
personally never use but might use if I learned more about them. I would 
not be surprised if the actual break loop could be instrumented to print 
(say) a particular character at line-position 0 to indicate the fact 
that you were not talking to Maxima.

The problem may not be so evident in (say) GCL because the break/ REPL 
in GCL, at least the last time I looked, was much simpler, and frankly, 
less useful. I have never used CLISP, and rarely used CMUCL (and only on 
debugged functions).

The proposed solution represents something of a "dumbing down" of
debugging, and I doubt that I would find something without
a backtrace and local variable access  useful for debugging.

RJF