From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andy Wingo Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: despair, debugging, and the repl Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:38:17 +0200 Message-ID: References: <87d3vt4lxr.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1276551426 6922 80.91.229.12 (14 Jun 2010 21:37:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2010 21:37:06 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org To: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s?=) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Jun 14 23:37:05 2010 connect(): No such file or directory Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by lo.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOHL2-0005fU-68 for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 23:37:00 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:48206 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOHL1-0000oF-JL for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:36:59 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=53322 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OOHKx-0000jV-GE for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:36:56 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOHKw-0006qa-8K for guile-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:36:55 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:35644 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OOHKw-0006qK-5R; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:36:54 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED7C4BB491; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:36:52 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; s=sasl; bh=vI0ghuyNjrW0 on8mCX1dLjJXydM=; b=TTOOUPglFxLpImPYG0NXjzGevpGcbGZ/0NboniX0Xq81 NOnIuFymOoiy9uCGxBqCb+GBItzWs5W9Xs0lHB/OmUCGv6Tvr6/dkJWhWKvu3SOu l2Noi0eOmBwc2Km5yR60Hbj62ReoTaHb6Asml+a8M84S1QHiE78s+maj9Flv3pE= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:references:date:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; q=dns; s=sasl; b=Sps4OO oo/MgeOwmdNZ2wIOBN3qOEf4b/wsr+3FFaCI4z5snHpc5Tk6MRDSwruYOAGTuCoU e3veogbvntu7SV1zP17uXIGjD+hs4TzhT4VmMYe4Br7SRbMK9eaZRvNN6kRukcvQ 19s9tlCHb7iMqZ6ixmuGFsHuNxh8QlJPlDd0M= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9158BB490; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:36:51 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [81.39.158.44]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3D3BDBB48C; Mon, 14 Jun 2010 17:36:50 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <87d3vt4lxr.fsf@gnu.org> ("Ludovic =?utf-8?Q?Court=C3=A8s=22'?= =?utf-8?Q?s?= message of "Mon, 14 Jun 2010 18:29:36 +0200") User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: F1EB1FEE-77FC-11DF-8DA5-9056EE7EF46B-02397024!a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:10475 Archived-At: On Mon 14 Jun 2010 18:29, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: >> So, to that end, then, here's a preliminary plan of action: >> >> * Deprecate all of the old repl code, keeping compatibility shims for >> the useful interfaces perhaps, but trying to move the REPL >> implementation entirely out to modules. >> >> * Remove all of the old debugger code. This pains me somewhat, but we >> have to move forward here. >> >> * Deprecate the-last-stack fluid -- besides being hard to reason >> about, it doesn't even work all that well. >> >> * Document the new REPL. > > Fine with me (but maybe you=E2=80=99ve already finished it in the meantim= e). No, there are still some repl bits of boot-9 that need limning. I skipped over some parts when revising boot-9 recently, and hope to come back to them soonish. > What about single-stepping Should be possible, given source line info and the next-instruction hook. > and expression-level debugging? Trickier, we'll need expression-level debug info in the procedure. And which expressions, the expanded ones or the ones from the original source? I think I'd need to spend some times with other schemes to figure this out. Breakpoints would be good too. Andy --=20 http://wingolog.org/