Re: debuging idea (was: Re: Stumped: 0 "not a quantity")

Subject: Re: debuging idea (was: Re: Stumped: 0 "not a quantity")
From: Jany Quintard <quintard.j@xxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 27 Jul 1999 11:48:32 +0200 (MEST)
On 27 Jul 1999, Joerg Wittenberger wrote:

> --text follows this line--
> Hello OpenJade folks,
> 
> >>>>> "BI" == Brandon Ibach <bibach@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
> 
> BI>    Gotcha! :) On a serious note, I'd advise that the first step in
.../...
> BI> more.  In this case, it would have shown you that it wasn't the
> 
> This is todays way of debuging DSSSL with jade.  Often enough I
> introduced new bugs (superflous ")", missplaced deletions of debuging
> code etc.) when removing those debug statements.
 
> (debug) is non-standard anyway, isn't it?  It shouldn't be too hard to
> change the reader to accept some non-standard "breakpoint-syntax",
> which could make debuging less error prone.  If I could write say #?
> *in front* of an expression with the effect of sticking (debug)
> *around* that expression - that would be cool.
That reminds me of the way we used in my team to write C++ code ready for
debugging, using the C/C++ preprocessor, with three levels of coding (0
for no debug, 1 for trace and 2 for heavy debug). 

The structure of C and DSSSL code is different, and it is a difficulty,  
but could the usage of a preprocessor (awk, what else...) with a set of
#define (call it as you want) be a way to industrialize the debug encoding ?

Or, as Jerry said, is this idea total nonsense?

Jany.


 DSSSList info and archive:  http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist


Current Thread