use the actual julia REPL

[BeastyBlacksmith]

I think it would make more sense to let people type in the actual REPL with all its niceties instead of throwing them in an input loop.

e.g.

julia> swirl() #lets you select lesson and prints instructions

julia> #user types code in normal REPL

julia> submit() # checks the state of Main and verifies solution; prints feedback

This would be easier with #3.

I tried to press arrow up too many times 😅

[atantos]

Thanks for these suggestions! Both ideas would definitely improve the package:

1. I agree with you about the "validator-type of function you suggested in Using functions instead of values for verification #3 . This is more robust than checking return values. The validator field is already in the Question struct, so this should be straightforward to implement in check_answer().

2. About the REPL-based flow, this would feel much more natural than the readline loop, indeed. You're right that it pairs well with validators since we'd be checking Main's state rather than capturing return values.

Would you be interested in opening a PR for either/both of these? I'm happy to review and provide feedback. If you'd prefer, I can also take a crack at implementing them, but might take me a bit longer to get to.

Either way, I think these would be great additions!

PS: I'll leave both issues open for now as a tracker until they're implemented. Feel free to reference them in your PR if you decide to work on these!

[atantos]

@BeastyBlacksmith you might want to take a look at the PR description of the REPL-based learning mode using ReplMaker backend

UPDATE: The PR has been updated, and the README.md has been revised accordingly. Feel free to check out the changes when you have a moment @BeastyBlacksmith .

[BeastyBlacksmith]

Thats definetly better. You still have to do everything in one prompt though.

And I had this case where the first time the "Just completed" indicator was one line off. In the second display it was fine though.

============================================================
Lessons in Julia Basics:
============================================================
  1. [ ] Basic Math and Bindings ← just completed
  2. [✓] Types and Functions
  3. [ ] Vectors and Arrays

Commands:
  0. Back to course selection
 -1. Exit Swirl
  reset <number> - Reset a specific lesson (e.g., 'reset 1')
  reset all - Reset all lessons in this course

💡 Type a lesson number or command:

swirl> 2

You've already completed this lesson!
Restart it? (yes/no): 

swirl> 1
Please type 'yes' or 'no'

swirl> no

👋 Returning to lesson menu...

============================================================
Lessons in Julia Basics:
============================================================
  1. [ ] Basic Math and Bindings
  2. [✓] Types and Functions ← just completed
  3. [ ] Vectors and Arrays

Commands:
  0. Back to course selection
 -1. Exit Swirl
  reset <number> - Reset a specific lesson (e.g., 'reset 1')
  reset all - Reset all lessons in this course

💡 Type a lesson number or command:

Generally you might want to think about how to handle the case when you have a saved state and you update Swirl and the lesson changes.

[BeastyBlacksmith]

These changes will be introduced as the next minor release (v0.1 → v0.5)

Also this is quite a version jump

[atantos]

These changes will be introduced as the next minor release (v0.1 → v0.5)

Also this is quite a version jump

I’m really not used to versioning conventions yet. Τhat’s why I haven’t tagged it so far. This version jump (from v0.1 to v0.5) was just my current intuition rather than experience, mainly because the recent changes include some API restructuring and potential breaking changes.

I’d actually appreciate a second opinion here: would something like v0.3 make more sense instead?

[atantos]

Generally you might want to think about how to handle the case when you have a saved state and you update Swirl and the lesson changes.

True, that’s something I’ll need to handle

[BeastyBlacksmith]

I’d actually appreciate a second opinion here: would something like v0.3 make more sense instead?

Version numbers ought to be consecutive, e.g. if the current version is v0.1 the next non-breaking version is v0.1.1 and the next breaking version is v0.2

IMO thats only important after you registered the package. You can very well play around with the code until you like it without changing the version number and then register a v1.0.

Official reference

[atantos]

And I had this case where the first time the "Just completed" indicator was one line off. In the second display it was fine though.

Thanks! When transitioning from course selection to the lesson menu, the code created a temporary ReplLessonState with current_lesson_idx hardcoded to 1. So, regardless of which lesson was most recently completed, the "<- just completed" indicator would always appear next to Lesson 1 when first displaying the menu.

Now, it's fixed. It first finds and uses the most recently completed lesson instead.