Re: check/0 hook

Hi Michael,

On 12/27/2013 05:33 PM, Michael Hendricks wrote:
> Patches submitted

Thanks.  Applied.  Added a subsequent patch to polish some small stuff.
Simple, but a definite improvement.  Guess we should also link to check/0
from the development tools at some point ...

	Cheers --- Jan



> 
> 
> -- 
> Michael
> 
> 
> On Fri, Dec 27, 2013 at 1:53 AM, Jan Wielemaker <[email protected]
> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
> 
>     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]>
>         <mailto:[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
> 
>