Closed danielcompton closed 6 years ago
I will correct it in the next version like the following if this is what you mean.
......
result# ~form
result2# (ut/take-n-if-seq n# result#)]
(when (or dup# (ut/eval-changed? evals# form# result2#))
(ut/print-form-with-indent (ut/form-header form# msg#)
(:indent-level @ut/config*))
(ut/pprint-result-with-indent result2# (:indent-level @ut/config*)))
result#))
......
Test result after correction:
(set-print-seq-length! 10)
(dbgn (count (range 200)))
dbgn: (count (range 200)) =>
| (range 200) =>
| (0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9)
| (count (range 200)) =>
| 200
It didn't occur to me before your suggestion. Thank you for good advice!
Yep that looks good. Thanks!
I think this is because of this line:
https://github.com/philoskim/debux/blob/master/src/debux/dbgn.clj#L218-L219
The limited
result#
should probably be renamed to a different name so that the unchanged result can be passed through safely.