Re: GUD octave support

[Nick Roberts]

 > I didn't understand why it "would require more work in Emacs than just
 > using GUD" since I thought we were discussing using GUD, and I was
 > only suggesting using a function instead of a command-line option. 

Pdbtrack is different to GUD in the way I tried to explain.  Making Octave
in Emacs work like Pdbtrack would require more work because Pdbtrack is not
part of Emacs as we have not been able to get all authors to sign papers
for Emacs

 > | Emacs could indeed send a special command to Octave when it starts up in
 > | GUD mode but what would be the advantage of this over using a special
 > | option in the command name?
 > 
 > If a function can do the job, then I'm not sure a command-line option
 > is needed.

I'm still not sure what the advantage would be but the choice is clearly
yours.  If Octave can be made to output the absolute file name and line
number in a formal way similar to the one I've described then Emacs can
surely be made to display the file in a buffer at the relevant line.

-- 
Nick                                           http://www.inet.net.nz/~nickrob