Requesting input on some possible low-level changes

On Wed, 2003-09-03 at 15:24, Raymond Toy wrote:
> >>>>> "James" == James Amundson <amundson@users.sourceforge.net> writes:
> 
>     James> I'm glad you are asking these questions. It seems to me
>     James> that replacing the real REPL wouldn't be any loss. If I am
>     James> missing something, I would like to hear about it.
> 
> It seems the only difference would be whatever customizations the
> underlying lisp has for its REPL.  Things like Allegro's
> shortcuts. (:c (?) to compile a file, etc.)  But I don't use these, so
> I won't miss them.

I hope losing the Allegro shortcuts wouldn't be too big a deal to anyone
else. We could implement some of them if there was enough interest.

>     James> The standard ways of getting to the REPL are to_lisp() and
>     James> ctrl-c. Both would be modified to take you to the maxima
>     James> REPL. Here is the simple prototype REPL I've been using:
> 
> I'm accustomed to Ctrl-c getting me to the Lisp debugger.  I'll miss
> that....  to_lisp() appears to be a bit broken currently, anyway.

I'd like to make sure to_lisp() works everywhere. I think it will be
much easier to do so in the new scheme.

>     James> Of course, the whole point of introducing
>     James> maxima-read-eval-print-loop would be to have hooks for
>     James> indicating that input is required. I haven't added any
>     James> hooks yet, however.
> 
> I think making the interaction robust is a very worthy goal and worth
> any minor differences in the REPL, even if it means I can't get to the
> debugger with my normal usage.  And I usually only use the plain
> command-line.

You'd still be able to set *debugger-hook* to nil and have full access
to the debugger in text mode.

--Jim