Re: pretty printing frames from *Backtrace* (WAS: Rant on ...)

Re: pretty printing frames from *Backtrace* (WAS: Rant on ...)

[Noam Postavsky]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 7:10 PM, Michael Heerdegen
<michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
>
> Here is what I use, more or less, I hope I succeeded to dissolve it from
> all dependencies from my personal stuff.
>
> Could be you must compile it to get backtrace frame counting working
> correctly.  The implemented commands are those bound in the
> debugger-mode-map at the file's end.

It seems to be 2 frames off non-compiled, and not working at all when
compiled. But I think it's something that is sorely lacking from the
debugger currently.

>
> This is just for trying.  Would it be worth it to make this a package?
>

I think it would be easier to integrate directly into the debugger, it
would probably save the trouble of cumbersome frame counting.

Re: pretty printing frames from *Backtrace*

[Michael Heerdegen]

Noam Postavsky <npostavs@users.sourceforge.net> writes:

> It seems to be 2 frames off non-compiled, and not working at all when
> compiled. But I think it's something that is sorely lacking from the
> debugger currently.

I had tested it in emacs -Q, worked well here compiled (emacs-25
branch).

> I think it would be easier to integrate directly into the debugger, it
> would probably save the trouble of cumbersome frame counting.

Doesn't the debugger already do frame counting from Lisp - see
`debugger-frame-number' (AFAICT marking frames for debugger-reentry is
based on this)?  FWIW I've changed my code to use this function instead
of reinventing the wheel.


Michael.

Re: pretty printing frames from *Backtrace*

[Noam Postavsky]

On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 10:30 PM, Michael Heerdegen
<michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
>
>> I think it would be easier to integrate directly into the debugger, it
>> would probably save the trouble of cumbersome frame counting.
>
> Doesn't the debugger already do frame counting from Lisp - see
> `debugger-frame-number' (AFAICT marking frames for debugger-reentry is
> based on this)?  FWIW I've changed my code to use this function instead
> of reinventing the wheel.

Ah, if you can reuse the debugger's counting that's okay. I still
think this would be better as an integrated feature of the debugger
though. Currently I switch to edebug as soon as I have an idea of
which function to instrument because of how hard it is to read
backtraces, having this feature really looks like a bare minimum to
me, not an addon.

Re: pretty printing frames from *Backtrace*

[Clément Pit--Claudel]

[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 404 bytes --]

On 2016-11-21 18:31, Noam Postavsky wrote:
> Ah, if you can reuse the debugger's counting that's okay. I still
> think this would be better as an integrated feature of the debugger
> though. [...] having this feature really looks like a bare minimum to
> me, not an addon.

+1; Michael, the features you described sound like they would make very nice additions to the core `debug'!

Clément.


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

Re: pretty printing frames from *Backtrace*

[Michael Heerdegen]

Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com> writes:

> On 2016-11-21 18:31, Noam Postavsky wrote:
> > Ah, if you can reuse the debugger's counting that's okay. I still
> > think this would be better as an integrated feature of the debugger
> > though. [...] having this feature really looks like a bare minimum to
> > me, not an addon.
>
> +1; Michael, the features you described sound like they would make
> very nice additions to the core `debug'!

So, should I create a patch against debug.el of master?  I don't speak
C, so everything I have to offer will be Elisp.


Regards,

Michael.

Re: pretty printing frames from *Backtrace*

[Noam Postavsky]

On Tue, Nov 22, 2016 at 9:22 AM, Michael Heerdegen
<michael_heerdegen@web.de> wrote:
> Clément Pit--Claudel <clement.pit@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> On 2016-11-21 18:31, Noam Postavsky wrote:
>> > Ah, if you can reuse the debugger's counting that's okay. I still
>> > think this would be better as an integrated feature of the debugger
>> > though. [...] having this feature really looks like a bare minimum to
>> > me, not an addon.
>>
>> +1; Michael, the features you described sound like they would make
>> very nice additions to the core `debug'!
>
> So, should I create a patch against debug.el of master?  I don't speak
> C, so everything I have to offer will be Elisp.
>

Yes please. I don't think C code is needed for this anyway.