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

[Ludovic Courtès]

Hi Neil,

Disclaimer: I'm not too familiar with the debugging infrastructure and
I've never used `break-at'.  But...

Neil Jerram <address@hidden> writes:

> By way of contrast, the other kind of breakpoint ("break-in") does not
> suffer from this problem, because it is defined in a way that relates
> more persistently to the code (even as the code changes).  A break-in
> breakpoint is defined as
>
>   break-in <procedure-name> [<module-or-file-name>]
>
> and means break at the start of that procedure.

That looks nice (I suppose it could also perform better than
`scan-source-whash'), but would "let" count as a <procedure-name> in
your example?  If so, how could we specify the scope referred to?

Thanks,
Ludovic.