Re: check/0 hook

On 12/26/2013 04:25 PM, Michael Hendricks wrote:
> On Thu, Dec 26, 2013 at 4:53 AM, Jan Wielemaker <[email protected]
> <mailto:[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?

I'd propose to just drop the pass numbers.  Simpler and they are
meaningless anyway.

	Cheers --- Jan