Re: check/0 hook

On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Jan Wielemaker <[email protected]> wrote:

> I'm in favour.  I wouldn't call it a hook.  I propose a multifile and
> dynamic
>
> check:checker(Goal, Message)
>
> The execution can use a failure driven loop, possibly using a catch
> with print_message to report errors in the registered checkers without
> breaking the process.
>

That sounds good.  I'll follow that design.

Do we want to retain the pass numbers ("PASS 1: ...", etc).  With a failure
driven loop I'd have to use nb_setval/2.  I suppose I could use findall and
a recursive loop instead.  Alternatively, we could remove the numbers and
just have "PASS: ..." I mostly ignore the numbers, so perhaps they can be
removed.  Any preference?

-- 
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
HTML attachment scrubbed and removed