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 |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
debuging idea (was: Re: Stumped: 0 , Joerg Wittenberger | Thread | Braifo 0.0.1 available, Peter Nilsson |
debuging idea (was: Re: Stumped: 0 , Joerg Wittenberger | Date | Braifo 0.0.1 available, Peter Nilsson |
Month |