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: debugger in 2.0? Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:15:40 +0100 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: lo.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1268603846 27155 80.91.229.12 (14 Mar 2010 21:57:26 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 21:57:26 +0000 (UTC) Cc: guile-devel To: Neil Jerram Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Mar 14 22:57:22 2010 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 1NqvoG-0001j3-Pu for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 22:57:21 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1]:42387 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NqvoG-0007dL-0e for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:57:20 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NqvoC-0007d6-7E for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:57:16 -0400 Original-Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=34832 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Nqvo9-0007cy-TD for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:57:14 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nqvo8-00020W-5R for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:57:13 -0400 Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com ([208.72.237.25]:38106 helo=sasl.smtp.pobox.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Nqvo8-00020S-1l for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:57:12 -0400 Original-Received: from sasl.smtp.pobox.com (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 770C1A18FD; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:57:11 -0400 (EDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; s=sasl; bh=i qUkqjUfoCsCBpvnfZ/xAtYAMgE=; b=q8UM0zLGiqPxze+D0rlVHYK785sva2c/j 1/KjwZzF8uQvTqiz3agCzbyF9CgRilhE2ol976lVTi7KrdlGrbUmK4qpYWEkV8XS yxG/TcljlpysJqOQIVnkyNw9NsJ3QI4jaEE3r/tq/i+MBX/CV2dBLoP6SFrS80ug IBw78WHzfA= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=pobox.com; h=from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:mime-version:content-type; q=dns; s= sasl; b=dzYXkmPHzTqe5CECBOtAHWyop+u1C6SxdkdiZTw8yVbjtRc9sIzbCkEm jNeuvfs+jCE915vCbeT3kFr4H3A6IZTfuvQ5H2HEQQHcnvaC37bU+fzJIsAUO5RD pUKzddwtgq2tLsTJg/uLcoJasd2cEpXANa11ipSBPFEAtq5Qxxo= Original-Received: from a-pb-sasl-quonix. (unknown [127.0.0.1]) by a-pb-sasl-quonix.pobox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 65496A18FC; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:57:10 -0400 (EDT) Original-Received: from unquote (unknown [81.38.185.122]) (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 C4748A18FB; Sun, 14 Mar 2010 17:57:08 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/23.0.92 (gnu/linux) X-Pobox-Relay-ID: 8A35FC1A-2FB4-11DF-9670-D033EE7EF46B-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:10050 Archived-At: Hi Neil, I am going over the debugger section in the manual, and realizing that I duplicated a lot of your excellent work, and that the debugger situation is really in an uncomfortable half-equilibrium. And indeed, we don't debug as well on the expression level that we did in the past; I have some thoughts about that, but I don't think they should hold back 2.0. I wanted to write to say that I was considering combing (ice-9 debugger) for salvageable code, and pulling things over to (system vm debug). I would refactor the manual section as well. The VM debugger is not yet as nice as yours was, but it does work, and is closer to the VM implementation -- and the old one is broke. I feel bad about that, but it is how it is. Anyway, let me know if this is the wrong thing to do. Cheers, Andy -- http://wingolog.org/