[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Anyone relying on "break-at" breakpoints?
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
Re: Anyone relying on "break-at" breakpoints? |
Date: |
Mon, 29 Oct 2007 09:45:14 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.11 (Gnus v5.11) Emacs/22.1 (gnu/linux) |
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.