* bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions
@ 2016-05-06 17:21 Paul Pogonyshev
2019-10-20 10:41 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Paul Pogonyshev @ 2016-05-06 17:21 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: 23470
When I re-evaluate (C-M-x) a function definition that has breakpoints,
all of them are lost. This is particularly annoying when breakpoints
are conditional, because now I not only have to recreate them
manually, but also specify all the conditions again.
Request: preserve existing breakpoints within definitions where
possible. One idea suggested on the devel list is to assign a marker
to each breakpoint and recreate it at the new marker position when
re-evaluating, as long as marker is not deleted (related to
bug#23468).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions
2016-05-06 17:21 bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions Paul Pogonyshev
@ 2019-10-20 10:41 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-20 11:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-20 11:11 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 2 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2019-10-20 10:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pogonyshev; +Cc: 23470
Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev@gmail.com> writes:
> When I re-evaluate (C-M-x) a function definition that has breakpoints,
> all of them are lost. This is particularly annoying when breakpoints
> are conditional, because now I not only have to recreate them
> manually, but also specify all the conditions again.
Yes, that sounds useful.
> Request: preserve existing breakpoints within definitions where
> possible. One idea suggested on the devel list is to assign a marker
> to each breakpoint and recreate it at the new marker position when
> re-evaluating, as long as marker is not deleted (related to
> bug#23468).
Hm... is that necessary? The breakpoints are tied to the offsets...
Hm, yes, but I guess the offsets will change if you've added/removed
some forms, which would put the breakpoints at the wrong position. So
markers seem like a better solution.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions
2019-10-20 10:41 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
@ 2019-10-20 11:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-20 11:14 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-20 11:11 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
1 sibling, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2019-10-20 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: pogonyshev, 23470
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 12:41:47 +0200
> Cc: 23470@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> Paul Pogonyshev <pogonyshev@gmail.com> writes:
>
> > When I re-evaluate (C-M-x) a function definition that has breakpoints,
> > all of them are lost. This is particularly annoying when breakpoints
> > are conditional, because now I not only have to recreate them
> > manually, but also specify all the conditions again.
>
> Yes, that sounds useful.
>
> > Request: preserve existing breakpoints within definitions where
> > possible. One idea suggested on the devel list is to assign a marker
> > to each breakpoint and recreate it at the new marker position when
> > re-evaluating, as long as marker is not deleted (related to
> > bug#23468).
>
> Hm... is that necessary? The breakpoints are tied to the offsets...
> Hm, yes, but I guess the offsets will change if you've added/removed
> some forms, which would put the breakpoints at the wrong position. So
> markers seem like a better solution.
If this request is implemented, how will the user be able to cancel
all the breakpoints in a function?
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions
2019-10-20 11:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2019-10-20 11:14 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-20 11:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2019-10-20 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Eli Zaretskii; +Cc: pogonyshev, 23470
Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
> If this request is implemented, how will the user be able to cancel
> all the breakpoints in a function?
Oh, that's a good point -- I didn't think about that.
Hm... got any ideas? :-)
Well, now the breakpoints are marked, at least, so you can remove them
manually with the `u' command, but perhaps that's not sufficient.
A new command to remove all breakpoints from a function, perhaps?
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions
2019-10-20 11:14 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
@ 2019-10-20 11:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-20 11:40 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
0 siblings, 1 reply; 7+ messages in thread
From: Eli Zaretskii @ 2019-10-20 11:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Lars Ingebrigtsen; +Cc: pogonyshev, 23470
> From: Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org>
> Cc: pogonyshev@gmail.com, 23470@debbugs.gnu.org
> Date: Sun, 20 Oct 2019 13:14:35 +0200
>
> Eli Zaretskii <eliz@gnu.org> writes:
>
> > If this request is implemented, how will the user be able to cancel
> > all the breakpoints in a function?
>
> Oh, that's a good point -- I didn't think about that.
>
> Hm... got any ideas? :-)
>
> Well, now the breakpoints are marked, at least, so you can remove them
> manually with the `u' command, but perhaps that's not sufficient.
>
> A new command to remove all breakpoints from a function, perhaps?
Yes, a new command would be fine (assuming there isn't one already: I
don't consider myself an expert on debug commands, and only ever use a
small subset of them).
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
* bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions
2019-10-20 10:41 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-20 11:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
@ 2019-10-20 11:11 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
1 sibling, 0 replies; 7+ messages in thread
From: Lars Ingebrigtsen @ 2019-10-20 11:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Paul Pogonyshev; +Cc: 23470
Lars Ingebrigtsen <larsi@gnus.org> writes:
> Hm... is that necessary? The breakpoints are tied to the offsets...
> Hm, yes, but I guess the offsets will change if you've added/removed
> some forms, which would put the breakpoints at the wrong position. So
> markers seem like a better solution.
I've now implemented this in Emacs 27, but only lightly tested.
--
(domestic pets only, the antidote for overdose, milk.)
bloggy blog: http://lars.ingebrigtsen.no
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 7+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2019-10-20 11:40 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 7+ messages (download: mbox.gz follow: Atom feed
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2016-05-06 17:21 bug#23470: Feature request: preserve breakpoints when C-u C-M-x function definitions Paul Pogonyshev
2019-10-20 10:41 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-20 11:11 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-20 11:14 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-20 11:31 ` Eli Zaretskii
2019-10-20 11:40 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
2019-10-20 11:11 ` Lars Ingebrigtsen
Code repositories for project(s) associated with this external index
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs.git
https://git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/emacs/org-mode.git
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.