search

dgrnbrg / spyscope

Trace-oriented debugging tools for Clojure
584 stars 35 forks source link

Colorization #18

Open kendagriff opened 8 years ago

kendagriff commented 8 years ago

Any interest in incorporating puget for colorization, either as the out-of-the-box or optional behavior? I'd be happy to submit a pull request.

If not, any suggestions on how to make them work together?

dgrnbrg commented 8 years ago

Yes, I think that'd be a great enhancement. Does puget have integration with vim and emacs for in-editor coloring? Either way, fipp would enable removing some of the synchronization code that specifically handles performance issues with pprint running in parallel. On Mon, Oct 19, 2015 at 1:18 PM Kendall Buchanan notifications@github.com wrote:

Any interest in incorporating puget https://github.com/greglook/puget for colorization, either as the out-of-the-box or optional behavior? I'd be happy to submit a pull request.

If not, any suggestions on how to make them work together?

— Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub https://github.com/dgrnbrg/spyscope/issues/18.

kendagriff commented 8 years ago

https://github.com/dgrnbrg/spyscope/pull/19

jaor commented 7 years ago

hi. is there any way of disabling colorization? i sometimes run my tests inside an emacs compilation buffer and i'd rather not have ansi colors there... thanks!

kendagriff commented 7 years ago

@jaor It's probably a simple PR, but you might look at this https://github.com/greglook/puget, too.

jaor commented 7 years ago

On Wed, Jun 07 2017, Kendall Buchanan wrote:

@jaor It's probably a simple PR, but you might look at this https://github.com/greglook/puget, too.

thanks kendall. i looked around, but since it's spyscope whose calling puget under the rug, i didn't see an easy way of telling #spy/p to pass printer configuration params in its calls to puget. i guess i can set somewhere in my ~.lein/profiles.clj a binding for puget.printer/*options*, but i was wondering whether there was something quick on spyscope's side.

dgrnbrg commented 7 years ago

I think that setting the binding is your best bet. I was going to suggest adding a binding to spyscope, but since puget already has that, you should be set!

jaor commented 7 years ago

On Wed, Jun 07 2017, David Greenberg wrote:

I think that setting the binding is your best bet. I was going to suggest adding a binding to spyscope, but since puget already has that, you should be set!

i still think a spyscope-specific setting would be a good idea, and would also protect your users from surprises the day you decide to switch from puget to something else (if that day ever arrives; but then a switch has already happened, and it has surprised me for one).

fwiw, imho, etc.

thanks!