Colorization

[kendagriff]

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]

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
#18.

[kendagriff]

#19

[jaor]

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]

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

[jaor]

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]

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]

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!