Re: [sr #3117] Functionality to inspect interactively after running script - The equivalence to python -i -- February 13, 2014 - 18:48

Hi,

For reference, here are the links to the discussions of Chris
MacRaild's implementation of the current RelaxWarning system and the
warning to error escalation idea:

http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.devel/168/focus=187
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.devel/168
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.devel/210
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.devel/212

These would be the key threads.  And here is the 'warning' branch
Chris created for the implementation:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.scm/1951
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/relax?view=revision&revision=2539
http://svn.gna.org/viewcvs/relax/branches/warning/?pathrev=2575

Regards,

Edward

On 13 February 2014 18:03, Edward d'Auvergne <edward@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> The idea in the patch looks ok.  It's worth discussing on the list the
> idea though, rather than relying on reading the patch itself.  The
> --pedantic flag activates this feature that Chris MacRaild added to
> relax back in 2006.  So I gather that the suggestion is to change the
> argument:
>
> -p, --pedantic, escalate all warnings to errors
>
> to:
>
> -e, --escalate, escalate all warnings to errors
>
> I guess this is reasonable.  I suggest committing just that change as
> one commit yourself.  The current patch also includes the argument:
>
> -p, --prompt, 'Execute the given script and continue into the prompt
> mode to allow for interactive inspection'
>
> This should be in a separate commit.  Also, the first letter of the
> help text should be in lowercase to match the rest of the help system.
>  There is also a problem with the logic of the if-else statement in
> the run() method.  I would suggest the pseudo-code:
>
> if script:
>     script_status = run_script()
> if not script or (script and status.prompt):
>     prompt()
>
> So essentially two commits, the first renaming --pedantic, the second
> adding the --prompt argument and logic.  What do you think?
>
> Regards,
>
> Edward
>
>
>
>
> On 13 February 2014 17:48, Troels E. Linnet
> <NO-REPLY.INVALID-ADDRESS@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Follow-up Comment #1, sr #3117 (project relax):
> >
> > This follows the discussion at:
> > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.nmr.relax.devel/5000
> >
> > The next step would be to figure out to run the code and stay in the
> > interpreter.
> > Is it necessary to write a new function?
> >
> > Initial pathc applied.
> >
> > (file #20034)
> >     _______________________________________________________
> >
> > Additional Item Attachment:
> >
> > File name: first.patch                    Size:5 KB
> >
> >
> >     _______________________________________________________
> >
> > Reply to this item at:
> >
> >   <http://gna.org/support/?3117>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >   Message sent via/by Gna!
> >   http://gna.org/
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > relax (http://www.nmr-relax.com)
> >
> > This is the relax-devel mailing list
> > relax-devel@xxxxxxx
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this list, get a password
> > reminder, or change your subscription options,
> > visit the list information page at
> > https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/relax-devel