Subject: debuging idea (was: Re: Stumped: 0 "not a quantity") From: Joerg Wittenberger <Joerg.Wittenberger@xxxxxxxxx> Date: 27 Jul 1999 10:46:20 +0200 |
--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> tracking down something like this (any kind of "invalid argument BI> or value" message from Jade) is to stick (debug) around the BI> expression in question. Sure, Jade may print out the "value" in BI> question as part of the error message, but (debug) will tell you 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. Example: currently we do (let auths-loop ((auth-idx 0)) (if (<= num-auths (debug auth-idx)) proposed: (let auths-loop ((auth-idx 0)) (if (<= num-auths #? auth-idx) Sure it's much more useful for complicated expressions to debug; it's also not the same simple syntax as the rest of DSSSL. If introduced, another command line argument should enable/disable this kind of debuging code. Or is this idea total nonsense? /Jerry DSSSList info and archive: http://www.mulberrytech.com/dsssl/dssslist
Current Thread |
---|
|
<- Previous | Index | Next -> |
---|---|---|
Re: Stumped: 0 "not a quantity", Brandon Ibach | Thread | Re: debuging idea (was: Re: Stumped, Jany Quintard |
Re: docbook2man patches, Thomas Lockhart | Date | Re: debuging idea (was: Re: Stumped, Jany Quintard |
Month |