Re: Anyone relying on "break-at" breakpoints?

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi,

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> Well there has to be some directly executed code somewhere, or else
> nothing will happen.  But I agree that it might be reasonable to
> expect any lexically non-trivial block of code to be defined as a
> procedure first.

Sure.  Or the first invocation could be passed as a parameter to
`guile', as in `scripts/PROGRAM'.

> Well I haven't tried this at all yet, but I'm wondering about a form
> of specification like
>
> (break-in <proc-name> '(let if string-append))
>
> - which would mean to break at the start of a string-append call that
> is lexically within an (if ...), which is itself lexically within a
> (let ...).
>
> Something like this might work for internal definitions, too.

Yeah, and I think it wouldn't work either with forms within a `begin',
e.g., `(begin (set! x 1) (set! x 2) ...)'.

> I have two possibilities in mind for this.  (1) is for C-x SPC to
> appear to work exactly as it has in the past, but not actually to send
> a `break-at' instruction to Guile.  Instead, the positions of the
> breakpoints are sent along with the code to be evaluated, and the
> gds-client code sets the 'breakpoint source property in all the right
> places, then evaluates the code.  (2) is to enhance the gds-eval*
> function so that a C-u prefix argument will cause them to set the
> 'breakpoint source property on the start of the code to be evaluated.

As long as `C-x SPC' keeps working the same way, it's all good.  ;-)

Thanks,
Ludovic.