greg - Not a frog user, but I think it’s the Racket way

Is there a way to have DrRacket use the —compiled option?

alternately, is there way to run DrRacket via plain Racket.exe ?

@danl-ndi if you just run racket, and then do (require drracket) at the repl, that will start dracket

alternatively, racket -l drracket

huh… that will help quite a bit, thank you

what is the racket code to reproduce this -W command line option: racket -W “debug@setup/parallel-build error” ?

@danl-ndi You can set up a new receiver with make-log-receiver and start a thread to write any received messages to (current-error-port). There’s no way to get exactly the same effect as -W, though, which configures an initial log receiver.

is there an example of using a log receiver to get those messages?

I assume i’ll start with (make-log-receiver logger ’info ’setup/parallel-build)

and use something like https://gist.github.com/Metaxal/6511048 ?

Right

@asumu @samth The add-annotations macro in the implementation of typed classes disarms the syntax object it receives, should it also be calling syntax-rearm on the syntax objects it returns?

@dan probably, but I’m not sure. I don’t remember explicitly not rearming it for any reason.

On a second look, it doesn’t look like anything in typed racket ever rearms syntax

@dan: The new “Remove Unused Requires” feature is really neat. However, it doesn’t work properly for things like multi-in due to the way it expands to require specs. Is there some way that either multi-in or the DrRacket refactoring could be changed to accommodate?

@lexi.lambda: probably, I’ll try to look into it later tonight/tomorrow

Cool, thanks! My bet is that racket-mode doesn’t handle it properly, either, since it seems pretty tricky to solve in general, but I haven’t tried it. Maybe @greg would know. :)

Modulo reformatting stuff, racket-mode is a pretty thin wrapper around macro-debugger/analysis/check-requires

Another issue re r-m and c-r is https://github.com/racket/macro-debugger/issues/3

I started to look at the code back then and discovered it was way above my pay-grade, then

I would try it myself to see what it does, but I don’t use emacs, and I definitely don’t have it set up on this machine.

I think I need to look more into what the macro-debugger does to see if check-syntax can use that

@lexi.lambda I filed an issue for the multi-in problem, thanks for pointing it out

https://github.com/racket/drracket/issues/110

Require transformers are generally tricky. There’s a bug of sorts I’ve tried to fix twice before, which is that require transformers don’t leave behind 'origin properties when nested. As far as I can tell, fixing this is impossible with the current API for require transformers.

For example, this means that in (require (combine-in (combine-in))), DrRacket understands the use of the first combine-in but not the second.