- (/// nil) (// nil) (/ nil)
- (eof-marker (cons :eof nil)))
- (loop
- (/show0 "at head of outer LOOP in TOPLEVEL-REPL")
- ;; There should only be one TOPLEVEL restart, and it's here, so
- ;; restarting at TOPLEVEL always bounces you all the way out here.
- (with-simple-restart (toplevel
- "Restart at toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop.")
- ;; We add a new ABORT restart for every debugger level, so
- ;; restarting at ABORT in a nested debugger gets you out to the
- ;; innermost enclosing debugger, and only when you're in the
- ;; outermost, unnested debugger level does restarting at ABORT
- ;; get you out to here.
- (with-simple-restart (abort
- "Reduce debugger level (leaving debugger).")
- (catch 'top-level-catcher
- (sb!unix:unix-sigsetmask 0) ; FIXME: What is this for?
- (/show0 "about to enter inner LOOP in TOPLEVEL-REPL")
- (loop ; FIXME: Do we need this inner LOOP?
- ;; FIXME: It seems bad to have GC behavior depend on scrubbing
- ;; the control stack before each interactive command. Isn't
- ;; there some way we can convince the GC to just ignore
- ;; dead areas of the control stack, so that we don't need to
- ;; rely on this half-measure?
- (scrub-control-stack)
- (unless noprint
- (fresh-line)
- (princ (if (functionp *prompt*)
- (funcall *prompt*)
- *prompt*))
- (flush-standard-output-streams))
- (let ((form (read *standard-input* nil eof-marker)))
- (if (eq form eof-marker)
- (quit)
- (let ((results
- (multiple-value-list (interactive-eval form))))
- (unless noprint
- (dolist (result results)
- (fresh-line)
- (prin1 result)))))))))))))
+ (/// nil) (// nil) (/ nil))
+ (/show0 "about to funcall *REPL-FUN-GENERATOR*")
+ (let ((repl-fun (funcall *repl-fun-generator*)))
+ ;; Each REPL in a multithreaded world should have bindings of
+ ;; most CL specials (most critically *PACKAGE*).
+ (with-rebound-io-syntax
+ ;; WITH-SIMPLE-RESTART doesn't actually restart its body as
+ ;; some (like WHN for an embarrassingly long time
+ ;; ca. 2001-12-07) might think, but instead drops control back
+ ;; out at the end. So when a TOPLEVEL or outermost-ABORT
+ ;; restart happens, we need this outer LOOP wrapper to grab
+ ;; control and start over again. (And it also wraps CATCH
+ ;; 'TOPLEVEL-CATCHER for similar reasons.)
+ (loop
+ (/show0 "about to set up restarts in TOPLEVEL-REPL")
+ ;; There should only be one TOPLEVEL restart, and it's here,
+ ;; so restarting at TOPLEVEL always bounces you all the way
+ ;; out here.
+ (with-simple-restart (toplevel
+ "Restart at toplevel READ/EVAL/PRINT loop.")
+ ;; We add a new ABORT restart for every debugger level, so
+ ;; restarting at ABORT in a nested debugger gets you out to
+ ;; the innermost enclosing debugger, and only when you're
+ ;; in the outermost, unnested debugger level does
+ ;; restarting at ABORT get you out to here.
+ (with-simple-restart
+ (abort
+ "~@<Reduce debugger level (leaving debugger, returning to toplevel).~@:>")
+ (catch 'toplevel-catcher
+ (sb!unix::reset-signal-mask)
+ ;; in the event of a control-stack-exhausted-error, we
+ ;; should have unwound enough stack by the time we get
+ ;; here that this is now possible
+ (sb!kernel::protect-control-stack-guard-page 1)
+ (funcall repl-fun noprint)
+ (critically-unreachable "after REPL")))))))))
+
+;;; Our default REPL prompt is the minimal traditional one.
+(defun repl-prompt-fun (stream)
+ (fresh-line stream)
+ (write-string "* " stream)) ; arbitrary but customary REPL prompt
+
+;;; Our default form reader does relatively little magic, but does
+;;; handle the Unix-style EOF-is-end-of-process convention.
+(defun repl-read-form-fun (in out)
+ (declare (type stream in out) (ignore out))
+ (let* ((eof-marker (cons nil nil))
+ (form (read in nil eof-marker)))
+ (if (eq form eof-marker)
+ (quit)
+ form)))
+
+(defun repl-fun (noprint)
+ (/show0 "entering REPL")
+ (loop
+ ;; (See comment preceding the definition of SCRUB-CONTROL-STACK.)
+ (scrub-control-stack)
+ (sb!thread::get-foreground)
+ (unless noprint
+ (funcall *repl-prompt-fun* *standard-output*)
+ ;; (Should *REPL-PROMPT-FUN* be responsible for doing its own
+ ;; FORCE-OUTPUT? I can't imagine a valid reason for it not to
+ ;; be done here, so leaving it up to *REPL-PROMPT-FUN* seems
+ ;; odd. But maybe there *is* a valid reason in some
+ ;; circumstances? perhaps some deadlock issue when being driven
+ ;; by another process or something...)
+ (force-output *standard-output*))
+ (let* ((form (funcall *repl-read-form-fun*
+ *standard-input*
+ *standard-output*))
+ (results (multiple-value-list (interactive-eval form))))
+ (unless noprint
+ (dolist (result results)
+ (fresh-line)
+ (prin1 result))))))