Re: Is this expected Geiser behavior?

[Nicholas Papadonis]

I'm using MELPA geiser-20200316.132.  When typing M-x geiser then the MIT REPL is entered in a buffer.  When typing M-x geiser-mode in the *scratch* buffer, Mit is set on the mode line.  Interacting with the *scratch* buffer using C-x C-e next to an _expression_ evaluates it and displays the resulting _expression_ under the mode line.  Unfortunately, I'm unable to find another message buffer like *Geiser dbg* buffer with the output of the evaluated command.  This style buffer appears as *Geiser dbg* when using guile.  I also noted that typing C-x C-e in the * Mit REPL * buffer causes the _expression_ to be evaluated as ELISP. Is this expected behavior?

I notice that using MIT Scheme with Edwin the evaluated (C-x C-e) result is output is output under command evaluated.  This is very helpful.  Does anyone know how to accomplish this?  Perhaps it is something missing from the MIT implementation in Geiser?

Thanks again!

I also notice that 

The scratch mode line displays MIT.  This does not however work if I use a buffer "test.scm".  

"test.scm" enters Guile mode, M-x geiser-mode does not seem to connect the buffer to the MIT REPL.

On Thu, Mar 19, 2020 at 11:14 PM Jose A. Ortega Ruiz <address@hidden> wrote:

On Thu, Mar 19 2020, Nicholas Papadonis wrote:

> I'm running the Mit REPL and editing a file test.scm.  
>
> In the test.scm buffer:
> (display "test")
>
> C-x C-e
>
> Under the mode line displays:
> => #!unspecific
>
> C-u C-x C-e 
> (display "test") #!unspecific
>
> Is this expected behavior?

yes. the _expression_ (display "test") evaluates to the value
#!unspecific.  printing to the standard output is a side effect, not the
value returned by the _expression_.

>
> In the REPL display works:
> (display "test")
> test
> ;Unspecified return value

in geiser it also "works".  the standard output should appear in a
buffer called *Geiser dbg*.  for guile for instance, it has the
appearance:

   (display "foo")

   => #<unspecified>

   foo

but it seems stdout is not fully implemented for MIT, and that's why you
don't see it.


cheers,
jao
--
Adding manpower to a late software project makes it later.
 -Fred Brooks