Hi
Just recently I stumbled upon edebug learning emacs and was surprises
how easy debugging of lisp code can be.
I had to fix the problem when I couldn't jump from compile error
messages to source code (C++ compilation) so I went to compile.el and
stepped through a few functions just pressing space bar and evaluating
different expressions until the solution to my problem was clear.
Back to CL. I read a few threads about debugging in CL and know that
most people prefer to incrementally build functions testing the most
simple forms and building on them (I really like it this way). In some
case we can insert the (break) function in the code to break into the
code and evaluate/change expressions. It's all good, but the frames
that the debugger prints are still cryptic to me.
I wonder if a project like edebug would be difficult to implement for
most Common Lisps? Or maybe there is no need for it? I wonder if
similar tool alread exists for Emacs?
Probably most commercial vendors do have it inside their IDEs? I use
CLisp with Slime on Windows.
Thank you,
Andrei
Heh heh. I don't use a commercial IDE but I'm betting you are right on
that score.
I'm also a lisp newbie. I'm using SLIME + CLISP on Cygwin. Yeah, when
I do something wrong and get a stack trace in SLIME I can't make heads
or tails of it. I usually just look at the error message reported and
stare at my code until the mistake becomes evident.
I also agree that stepping through the code (e.g. edebug) is useful
when trying to understand and modify someone elses program (e.g.
compile.el). I would love to have this ability in SLIME.
Years of doing embedded programming in C/C++ has taught me to get along
without interactive debugging so I don't really care about this point
so much.
--jfc
"funkyj" <······@gmail.com> writes:
> I'm also a lisp newbie. I'm using SLIME + CLISP on Cygwin. Yeah, when
> I do something wrong and get a stack trace in SLIME I can't make heads
> or tails of it. I usually just look at the error message reported and
> stare at my code until the mistake becomes evident.
In clisp, debugging of NON-compiled functions is much easier and more
informative.
And if you want to track a bug thru asdf systems, mind (asdf:operate
'asdf:load-source-op ...) instead of (asdf:operate 'asdf:load-op ...).
--
__Pascal Bourguignon__ http://www.informatimago.com/
THIS IS A 100% MATTER PRODUCT: In the unlikely event that this
merchandise should contact antimatter in any form, a catastrophic
explosion will result.
Hi,
look for stepping - I once had the same problem, but I have forgotten
the solution (it was about stepping and how to step into/over, I got it
from the clisp-docs then).
Ciao,
Bernd
--
T_a_k_e__c_a_r_e__o_f__y_o_u_r__R_I_G_H_T_S.
P_r_e_v_e_n_t__L_O_G_I_C--P_A_T_E_N_T_S
http://www.ffii.org, http://www.nosoftwarepatents.org