20 Apr
2007
20 Apr
'07
4:33 p.m.
Marco Baringer wrote:
this would only make sense, imho, if evaling code in the buffers respected the repl's *package*, *readtable*, etc. and updated *, **, ***, +, ++, etc.
is this what you're suggesting? i'm not sure i like it, it's nice to have some code in the repl which tests a function and have recompiling that function not upset the state of the repl. however if we allowed multiple, independant, repls this wouldn't be such a problem.
I don't know Rainer wants, but I've often enough hoped that C-x C-e updated * &co. Because of that I now more often use C-c I then C-x C-e...
C-c C-c should of course not touch * &co.
Cheers,
-- Nikodemus