gjkernsysu at gmail.com
Sat Feb 23 15:46:30 CET 2013
On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 8:48 AM, Vitalie Spinu <spinuvit at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hm, I thought you have done with that and I was so much in a hurry that
> I have already merged it :)
You are right - thanks goes to you.
> Echoing in process buffer is a bit different than "echoing" when sending
> code form a script buffer. The first one is just a logical indicating
> whether the process actually echoes it's input. For example,
> > print("foo")
> would produce in *R* buffer
> > print("foo")
>  "foo"
> There are some processes that do that, for example S+. Julia and R
> don't, so there is (in principle) no need for that. This being a main
> idea, the story is not that simple with ESS, which intentionally sets
> comint-process-echoes dynamically depending on the value of
> ess-eval-visibly. This is in order to match the behavior that you get
> when evaluating directly in *R* buffer, and when sending code from
> script buffers.
> Your concern has to do with something else though. Correct me if I am
> wrong, but it is the thing that we call "(in)visible evaluation" that
> bothers you. That is, the evaluated code from the script buffer is not
> echoed in the inferior buffer.
> Currently ess-julia completely ignores ess-eval-visibly and that is
> historical. Back in May, julia was not supporting accumulation of
> commands. So if you send an incomplete commmand, julia would not wait
> for the terminal input and would throw an error.
> I think this has been solved on julia side in meanwhile and it is quite
> likely that it is possible to make ess-julia behave pretty much like
> ess-R does. I will look into it once my installation of julia is
Thanks for the insightful reply; yes, the bulk of my comments were a
long-winded way to say, "I'm trying to get julia to act the same way R
I appreciate the time you've taken to look into this. I had a feeling
there had to be a reason why 2194 was set the way it was. :-)
More information about the ESS-help