From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Nicolas Richard Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.help Subject: Re: Standard Elisp debugger vs. Edebug Date: Wed, 06 May 2015 10:38:06 +0200 Message-ID: <87siba3xu9.fsf@yahoo.fr> References: <874mnqofox.fsf@mbork.pl> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1430901580 19476 80.91.229.3 (6 May 2015 08:39:40 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 6 May 2015 08:39:40 +0000 (UTC) Cc: Help Gnu Emacs mailing list To: Marcin Borkowski Original-X-From: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Wed May 06 10:39:30 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1YpurZ-0005AE-Q5 for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 10:39:29 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:43599 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpurY-0005d7-Dv for geh-help-gnu-emacs@m.gmane.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 04:39:28 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33803) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpurD-0005ct-N4 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 04:39:17 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpurA-00053e-G5 for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 04:39:07 -0400 Original-Received: from mxin.ulb.ac.be ([164.15.128.112]:32819) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1YpurA-00053N-AC for help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org; Wed, 06 May 2015 04:39:04 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AvAKAEbSSVWkD4Xx/2dsb2JhbABchDuzbgEBBplLAoF1AQEBAQEBgQtBBYNbAQEDAXkFCwgDDhMlDwEESROIFgENCLIrjBoBhXQBAQEBBgEBAQEehheCNIJuhQUHhC0BBJxzhz+OcCODdjwxgkUBAQE Original-Received: from mathsrv4.ulb.ac.be (HELO localhost) ([164.15.133.241]) by smtp.ulb.ac.be with ESMTP; 06 May 2015 10:36:26 +0200 In-Reply-To: <874mnqofox.fsf@mbork.pl> (Marcin Borkowski's message of "Tue, 05 May 2015 23:52:14 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.0.50 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 164.15.128.112 X-BeenThere: help-gnu-emacs@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Users list for the GNU Emacs text editor List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: help-gnu-emacs-bounces+geh-help-gnu-emacs=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.help:104238 Archived-At: Hi Marcin, Marcin Borkowski writes: > Even then, Edebug won't show me the backtrace, Hit 'd' when in edebug to get a backtrace. That backtrace is less powerful than the one you get with just (debug), but at least you have function names, which you can then decide to instrument if you like. > I would guess that using the standard > debugger might be easier with macro-heavy code, at least sometimes. Am > I right? It depends on what you're interested in debugging. e.g. if you instrument the (defmacro) form, edebug will show you the steps while the macro is being expanded (as well as the result of the expansion -- but for this you have pp-macroexpand-last-sexp and the like). e.g. if you C-u C-M-x on this: (defmacro yf/foo () `(progn ,(+ 2 2) t)) then eval (yf/foo) edebug will show you that it evals (+ 2 2), and that the macro expands to (progn 4 t) (which obviously evals to `t'). > Are there any other reasons to choose the standard debugger over > Edebug? C-h f debugger-mode RET shows what you can do in the debugger. FWIW I often use these : e debugger-eval-expression v debugger-toggle-locals -- Nico